Since I started writing this column I’ve had several “discussions” with a couple of aquaintenances over my perceived misuse of the words “Liberal” and “Conservative” when referring to the political left and right, or rather to Republicans and Democrats. In the interest of keeping open warfare to a minimum, I did an internet search for the definitions of these two words. So, with my apologies to the original writer, I’ll present a rather abbreviated version…
Liberal; the dictionary definition of “liberal” is now almost exclusively used to mean someone from the political left, or simply a synonym for a Democrat. As such, “liberal” has undergone an about-face from someone who is open-minded and non-traditional to someone who seeks to maintain the status quo in the face of efforts to undo the program of past liberals. In addition, the word “liberal” has acquired a negative connotation as spend-thrifts of government money.
Conservative; an old-style conservative was one who is skeptical of change, and who prefers a “go slow” approach to change. “Conservative” is now simply used to mean someone from the right, or simply a synonym for a Republican. As such, “conservative” has become one who demands change from current forms or ways, toward a set of restrictive social mores coupled with an economic program designed to strengthen the current class system and maintain the power of the existing ruling classes.
(Honest, that’s what it said in the book!) As a long time Independent I can’t say that either description really fits my attitude towards our political system. I rather think I could best be described as on “old style” conservative that thinks we need to do a lot of study on whatever subject before we start changing things around.
I’ve also been following the seemingly endless rhetoric of the current crop of presidential hopefuls with a lot of misgiving. We should or we should not withdraw from Iraq. We should or we should not come up with a nationalized health care plan. We should or we should not allow abortion. Private schooling is/is not a good idea. We need more/less government surveillance. We need a bigger/smaller government. Do we increase taxes, or reduce them? Sheesh, it’s enough to drive a normal person crazy trying to keep track of all the options we’re being offered! We’ve got Republicans, Democrats, Moderates, Independents, “Greens”, Constitutionalists, Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives, several groups of Theocrats, Isolationists, States Rightists, a Neo-Nazi or two, Anarchists, wannabe Communists, “Know Nothings”, and a bunch of folks I don’t know how to describe, all running for President, and of course they’ve all got their own bright ideas. There’s at least one young feller out there in internet land that thinks the United States should adopt the diplomatic policies of Attila the Hun! In my case I can scream, preach, and do all the finger pointing I want, because I have no intention of ever running for President, or even dogcatcher for that mater. But if we suddenly find the need of a “Dictator for Life”, I could be talked into accepting the job…
One thing most Americans fail to understand is that government is a self perpetuating industry these days. It is not in the best interest of government or government employees to be limited in size, or to have its income (taxes) reduced or restricted by statute. Governmental authority is usually considered to be the right to collect taxes, enforce obedience, and delegate power or influence, based on control of the police and army. (If anyone other than the government tried to do that, it would be called extortion, and they’d justifiably spend quite some time in the hoosegow.) We all realize of course that we don’t operate our “government” in quite that manner here in the United States. Instead, every four years we vote for whatever individual we want to have controlling the police and army, so they can collect taxes, enforce authority, etc. etc.
The problem is in deciding whom, of all the people making campaign promises they have no intention of keeping, do we vote for? Most Americans solve that problem by watching TV, and selecting the candidate they think the most handsome, or the better public speaker, or perhaps whoever makes the most outrageous promises. But we also forget is that insincerity is hard to detect on television or even in the printed media. Sound bites and shallow reporting see to that. Our two-party system further complicates the issue by severely limiting our choices to the people selected by vested interests, with the alternative being the assorted fringe elements.
I used to think the European political scene was a confusing madhouse until I started looking at the fringes of American politics. For the moment I’ll define “fringes” as anything that isn’t an integral part of what is commonly considered Republican/Democratic “mainstream” politics. I understand that there are more than 200 distinct political parties or movements active in the United States today, each with their own political agenda, and each with somebody that wants to be president, which gives us a lot of fringe movements!
The political fringes seem to be populated by any number of lunatics at first glance. But the further you look into them, there are a few people out there with some pretty good ideas, at least from my viewpoint. Some of those fringes actually think we need a smaller government and lower taxes! Some of those crazies actually oppose the growing “big brother” state with its endless surveillance of the citizenry! Some even oppose the “Nanny State” so beloved of the mainstream left! If you stop and think about it for a moment, what’s so “fringe” about thinking that our government is supposed to be a constitutional republic with limited powers, instead of a welfare state democracy, or a “safe and secure” police state?
Ron Paul of Texas, and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, appear to be two of those “fringe” politicians standing in opposition to whatever it is that mainstream politicians have in mind for the future of our country. Ron Paul seems to think we need a smaller government and lower taxes, less government surveillance, and that we should pull in our horns and tend to our own knitting for a change. Tom Tancredo opposes our “open borders” policy, unlimited federal spending, and activist judges. I rather think that both of these guys are worthy of a long look before they’re dismissed as crazies without a chance of winning.
After all, Ross Perot was considered a crazy fringe politician by the mainstream, but American voters thought he was serious enough that he wound up with 19% of the popular vote. How many more didn’t vote for him, but later wished they had?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Vandals at the Wall
The Vandals are upon us again, and I don’t mean the athletes from Moscow either. Real ones this time, honest to Gawd barbarians that have no respect for other people, civilized behavior, or much of anything else except their own personal desires. They can’t yowl loud enough to become rock music stars, they’re not pretty enough to be movie stars, and they aren’t smart enough to be crooked politicians. So instead, they find other means to draw attention to themselves, in this case defacing public memorials.
Friday, the 7th of September, a “light, oily substance” was splattered on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall panels and paving stones in an act of vandalism. The vandals appear to have walked along the wall while squirting an oil based substance on the lower sections of the panels. The liquid discolored the polished surface of the stone memorial and was absorbed into the porous parts of the stone where the names of our fallen warriors are etched into the stone. Many names have become unreadable due to the absorption of the fluid.
At the same time, Washington was deeply involved with the reports by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, which the Democratic leadership had already condemned as more “Bush lies” well before anything was said. At the same time, ANSWER and a number of other anti-war groups including moveon.org were planning massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, events that seem entirely too coincidental to assume that Friday’s discovery was an act of vandalism unconnected with the demonstrations. Jan Scruggs, who is the founder and president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund said that there is a belief that the recent vandalism was motivated by "MoveOn.org type of people" but he hopes that no one is accusing them at this point. “I just can’t image that this was an organized activity or a conspiracy involving more than one deranged person, or that anyone would have done this to score political points for their cause -- it would have just the opposite effect.”
Col. Harry G. Riley (US Army, Ret.) who is heading up the “Eagles” veterans group said that “When you see there is some type of a substance on the wall down and on the base for 50 to 60 feet, its pretty hard for me to rationalize how that could be anything other than purposeful…” “Who ever did this, if they were trying to enrage the Vietnam Veterans, they did.” In response some veterans groups planned to parallel the anti-war demonstrations with lines of volunteers blocking access to the Vietnam Wall and other memorials they believe may be targeted for defacement. Col. Riley’s right you know, this wanton act of vandalism has certainly infuriated this Vietnam vet, and not in a manner that would meet with the approval of the anti-war crowd!
The week of anti-war events is intended to trigger a nationwide demonstration against the war in Iraq, and is set to begin Saturday with a 1,000-person “die-in” at the U.S. Capitol. The die-in is planned to be the high point of a march and rally. Organizers hope the event will spur people in the antiwar movement to move from protesting to performing acts of civil disobedience that “get in the way of the war machine”. For some reason this is beginning to smell like the mess we found ourselves facing in the 1960’s, where sensless rioting and wanton destruction became a common fact of American life.
Certainly anti-war protests are nothing new in American history, with some protests becoming rather bloody riots in both New York and Baltimore during our Civil War. Unlike places like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Red China, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, protesting is the right of all American citizens. However, I see a distinct difference between protesting the war in Iraq, and purely destructive vandalism!
That someone would deface this place is beyond me. They dishonor the dead, they dishonor those that came home, having left too many of their friends-not to mention part of themselves-somewhere in Vietnam. They also dishonor the families of the dead. For what? So they could make some sort of juvenile statement? Whatever statement they were trying to make was made in cowardice. While I despise those idiots who took it upon themselves to make asses of themselves during the Congressional Testimonies, at least they had the nerve to do so in public and risk arrest. The slime that defaced the wall made their statement in fear, and in a city full of monuments with which to make a bad decision, they made the worst decision possible. That place is hallowed ground to so many. Many more will now come to defend it, because it is as much theirs as it is anyone else’s. My advice to the anti war crowd: Stay away from The Wall. It may belong to all of us, but trust me when I tell you that right now, you will not be welcome there. You will now be met by a group of people that will be justifiably angry.
So far I’ve been fairly quiet about this savage act because I haven’t been able to say anything that wouldn’t be considered a criminal act, to whit, advocating vigilanty justice. To say that I am mad as hell doesn’t even begin to explain the rage that I feel about this. I’ll join my voice with many veterans in saying that those who defaced the wall should be hunted down, drawn and quartered. Their heads should be posted on pikes on one side of the wall, and the rest of them scattered to the four corners of America as a warning to others who would do the same. There is no reasoning with the kind of people who deface war memorials to further their warped cause; they can only be likened to insane people who are possessed by a rage that knows no bounds. It takes a really sick individual with no moral conscience whatsoever to violate the rights of the dead.
The young men and women whose names cover the wall gave their lives for their country in Vietnam. They did not run away from their obligations as American citizens, they did not hide behind some conveniently assumed morality, they did not mindlessly parrot the lies of those who would destroy this nation. Those young people didn’t start the war in Vietnam, many didn’t agree with that war, and certainly they weren’t here to start the war in Iraq. They were simply young Americans, who, as American soldiers have throughout our history and in accordance with our law, went where their country sent them… and there - like the three hundred Spartans - they died, doing their duty.
Friday, the 7th of September, a “light, oily substance” was splattered on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall panels and paving stones in an act of vandalism. The vandals appear to have walked along the wall while squirting an oil based substance on the lower sections of the panels. The liquid discolored the polished surface of the stone memorial and was absorbed into the porous parts of the stone where the names of our fallen warriors are etched into the stone. Many names have become unreadable due to the absorption of the fluid.
At the same time, Washington was deeply involved with the reports by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, which the Democratic leadership had already condemned as more “Bush lies” well before anything was said. At the same time, ANSWER and a number of other anti-war groups including moveon.org were planning massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, events that seem entirely too coincidental to assume that Friday’s discovery was an act of vandalism unconnected with the demonstrations. Jan Scruggs, who is the founder and president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund said that there is a belief that the recent vandalism was motivated by "MoveOn.org type of people" but he hopes that no one is accusing them at this point. “I just can’t image that this was an organized activity or a conspiracy involving more than one deranged person, or that anyone would have done this to score political points for their cause -- it would have just the opposite effect.”
Col. Harry G. Riley (US Army, Ret.) who is heading up the “Eagles” veterans group said that “When you see there is some type of a substance on the wall down and on the base for 50 to 60 feet, its pretty hard for me to rationalize how that could be anything other than purposeful…” “Who ever did this, if they were trying to enrage the Vietnam Veterans, they did.” In response some veterans groups planned to parallel the anti-war demonstrations with lines of volunteers blocking access to the Vietnam Wall and other memorials they believe may be targeted for defacement. Col. Riley’s right you know, this wanton act of vandalism has certainly infuriated this Vietnam vet, and not in a manner that would meet with the approval of the anti-war crowd!
The week of anti-war events is intended to trigger a nationwide demonstration against the war in Iraq, and is set to begin Saturday with a 1,000-person “die-in” at the U.S. Capitol. The die-in is planned to be the high point of a march and rally. Organizers hope the event will spur people in the antiwar movement to move from protesting to performing acts of civil disobedience that “get in the way of the war machine”. For some reason this is beginning to smell like the mess we found ourselves facing in the 1960’s, where sensless rioting and wanton destruction became a common fact of American life.
Certainly anti-war protests are nothing new in American history, with some protests becoming rather bloody riots in both New York and Baltimore during our Civil War. Unlike places like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Red China, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, protesting is the right of all American citizens. However, I see a distinct difference between protesting the war in Iraq, and purely destructive vandalism!
That someone would deface this place is beyond me. They dishonor the dead, they dishonor those that came home, having left too many of their friends-not to mention part of themselves-somewhere in Vietnam. They also dishonor the families of the dead. For what? So they could make some sort of juvenile statement? Whatever statement they were trying to make was made in cowardice. While I despise those idiots who took it upon themselves to make asses of themselves during the Congressional Testimonies, at least they had the nerve to do so in public and risk arrest. The slime that defaced the wall made their statement in fear, and in a city full of monuments with which to make a bad decision, they made the worst decision possible. That place is hallowed ground to so many. Many more will now come to defend it, because it is as much theirs as it is anyone else’s. My advice to the anti war crowd: Stay away from The Wall. It may belong to all of us, but trust me when I tell you that right now, you will not be welcome there. You will now be met by a group of people that will be justifiably angry.
So far I’ve been fairly quiet about this savage act because I haven’t been able to say anything that wouldn’t be considered a criminal act, to whit, advocating vigilanty justice. To say that I am mad as hell doesn’t even begin to explain the rage that I feel about this. I’ll join my voice with many veterans in saying that those who defaced the wall should be hunted down, drawn and quartered. Their heads should be posted on pikes on one side of the wall, and the rest of them scattered to the four corners of America as a warning to others who would do the same. There is no reasoning with the kind of people who deface war memorials to further their warped cause; they can only be likened to insane people who are possessed by a rage that knows no bounds. It takes a really sick individual with no moral conscience whatsoever to violate the rights of the dead.
The young men and women whose names cover the wall gave their lives for their country in Vietnam. They did not run away from their obligations as American citizens, they did not hide behind some conveniently assumed morality, they did not mindlessly parrot the lies of those who would destroy this nation. Those young people didn’t start the war in Vietnam, many didn’t agree with that war, and certainly they weren’t here to start the war in Iraq. They were simply young Americans, who, as American soldiers have throughout our history and in accordance with our law, went where their country sent them… and there - like the three hundred Spartans - they died, doing their duty.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Fire Policy
The world, as I knew it for decades, is coming to an end. While not quite as serious as the second coming threatens to be, the world of wildland firefighting is undergoing some earthshaking changes. Many of these changes are probably justifiable, but I’m not sure if I like all this or not.
When I started firefighting oh so many years ago, at the first sign of smoke every able bodied man in our rural neighborhood grabbed a shovel or axe, and ran off to help Smokey Bear defend the forest, thereby saving their jobs, and probably their homes, and the town as well. At the same time, the Ladies started making a small mountain of sandwich’s and what seemed like a million gallons of coffee to sustain the firefighters. Hand lines and ‘dozer lines were the rule, the old timers could fall a tree in amazingly short time with an axe (us younger guys much preferred a chainsaw), and we probably did more damage to the ecosystem with our efforts than the fire did! Those were the days when it was almost a “badge of honor” to bring your engine back to the station house with half the paint burnt off, as that showed you were “tough” and could take it.
As time went on, things changed considerably, and certainly for the better. What had been an extremely hazardous occupation became much more professional, and through extensive training was reduced to being only “very” hazardous. Dozens of firefighters were still killed each year, equipment was lost, huge amounts of money was spent, and hundreds of thousands of acres of forests burned every year. However, “the times they are ‘a changing” I’m afraid.
For decades most of the justification for aggressively extinguishing forest fires was based on the idea that if we saved the forest from burning, the trees were then available for logging, and there was nearly always a high demand for lumber. In this modern day however, lumber is no longer a local or even national market, but has become a globalized big business. If you buy a board today, it could have come from nearly anywhere, the United States, Canada, Europe, Siberia perhaps… Here in the states, the days of Paul Bunyon are long gone, and I’m afraid they’re not coming back, thanks to the efforts of the radical environmentalists and the federal courts. So, we’ve now lost our primary justification for extensive fire fighting. Then too, as we’ve been told countless times over the last few years, the firefighting efforts during the twentieth century have allowed a tremendous fuel load to build up in the woods, a point I’ll quickly concede. With those fuel loads we get some very large and quite intense fires during the summer months, long duration fires that require a lot of effort and expense to contain, and even more expense to rehabilitate afterwards. The 1940’s saw the begining of the use of prescribed fires to control that excessive fuels accumulation, a practice that soon spread across the nation. But still, firefighting was an expensive proposition, and the costs grow every year. I understand that the Nez Perce National Forest has been spending nearly half their annual budget over the last few years just in fire related operations. Looking at the individual cost of these fires, that’s a lot of money out of the taxpayer’s pockets!
To make a long story short, something’s obviously got to give, and in this case it was traditional firefighting.
After much soul searching and brain storming I’m sure, the Forest Service has again changed their approach to wildland fires. Certainly a lot of fires will continue to be aggressively attacked, but not as many as we’ve seen in previous years. A lot more of the marginal fires will be used as WFU (wildland fire use) burns, and I suspect the majority of fires will be handled in a manner similar to what we’ve seen on the Rattlesnake, Concord, Raines, and Loon-Zena fires this year, they’ll be “managed” to achieve land use objectives. Rather than surrounding a fire with control lines and then extinguishing it, I expect we’ll see a lot fewer fire crews and engines during the summer, the judicious use of only a few fire lines, and a lot of helicopter bucket drops to cool hot spots and slow a fire’s advance. As we saw on the Rattlesnake fire, “high value” exposures will be protected as happened in Dixie, but the majority of the fire will be allowed to burn. The forest service insists this isn’t really anything new, but rather is a further development of their existing policies. The new decision criteria includes considering things like the property value at risk, potential hazards to firefighter lives, and the expected costs of extinguishment. It’s not a “Let it Burn” policy according to the forest service, but I suspect we’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference in many cases. I certainly can’t say I’m very happy with this change, but I can understand the reasoning behind it, and I can see where the Forest Service managers feel they have no other option.
Still, I drove to Boise Monday, by way of Highway 55. As I left town early in the morning, I noticed that there was a lot of smoke in the sky. Guess what… that smoke plume continued all the way to Boise, making driving, and breathing, rather difficult. I also noticed that the Boise VA hospital had a lot of elderly veterans sitting around suffering from respiratory problems… brought on by that smoke I understand. Is this what we’re going to see every summer, for weeks on end? Considering the impact local citizens wishes have on the doings of the US government, we’re going to have to learn to live with it I guess.
The big impact will be on private land owners. Protecting private property adjacent to forest lands is expensive, particularly so if the land owner hasn’t made any previous effort to prepare for a fire. Far to many property owners have ignored the possibility of fires right up to the time it crossed their boundaries, and then they expect the firefighters to save everything for them. With this new policy the land owner will have to assume a large part of the responsibility by removing those excessive fuels, assuring that his buildings are at least somewhat fire resistant, and probably installing a minimal fire fighting capability as well. From a fire tactics viewpoint I see no reason why this policy wouldn’t work, but it’s going to be mighty hard to tell dedicated firefighters to “back off” when a fire starts moving on someone’s home. From a purely economic viewpoint however, I guess it makes good sense.
People are going to have to get real serious about the objectives behind the “Fire Wise” and “Fire Safe” programs on their private property. Yes, brush and dead trees can be cleared from the property. Yes, excessive trees can be thinned out. Yes, tall grass can be mowed. And yes, buildings can be made more fire resistant as well. In some cases this can get pretty expensive for the individual, as well as requiring a summer long ongoing effort to maintain that fire safe condition.
Still, I don’t think I’d want to bet the farm that we won’t have a fire in any particular year either.
When I started firefighting oh so many years ago, at the first sign of smoke every able bodied man in our rural neighborhood grabbed a shovel or axe, and ran off to help Smokey Bear defend the forest, thereby saving their jobs, and probably their homes, and the town as well. At the same time, the Ladies started making a small mountain of sandwich’s and what seemed like a million gallons of coffee to sustain the firefighters. Hand lines and ‘dozer lines were the rule, the old timers could fall a tree in amazingly short time with an axe (us younger guys much preferred a chainsaw), and we probably did more damage to the ecosystem with our efforts than the fire did! Those were the days when it was almost a “badge of honor” to bring your engine back to the station house with half the paint burnt off, as that showed you were “tough” and could take it.
As time went on, things changed considerably, and certainly for the better. What had been an extremely hazardous occupation became much more professional, and through extensive training was reduced to being only “very” hazardous. Dozens of firefighters were still killed each year, equipment was lost, huge amounts of money was spent, and hundreds of thousands of acres of forests burned every year. However, “the times they are ‘a changing” I’m afraid.
For decades most of the justification for aggressively extinguishing forest fires was based on the idea that if we saved the forest from burning, the trees were then available for logging, and there was nearly always a high demand for lumber. In this modern day however, lumber is no longer a local or even national market, but has become a globalized big business. If you buy a board today, it could have come from nearly anywhere, the United States, Canada, Europe, Siberia perhaps… Here in the states, the days of Paul Bunyon are long gone, and I’m afraid they’re not coming back, thanks to the efforts of the radical environmentalists and the federal courts. So, we’ve now lost our primary justification for extensive fire fighting. Then too, as we’ve been told countless times over the last few years, the firefighting efforts during the twentieth century have allowed a tremendous fuel load to build up in the woods, a point I’ll quickly concede. With those fuel loads we get some very large and quite intense fires during the summer months, long duration fires that require a lot of effort and expense to contain, and even more expense to rehabilitate afterwards. The 1940’s saw the begining of the use of prescribed fires to control that excessive fuels accumulation, a practice that soon spread across the nation. But still, firefighting was an expensive proposition, and the costs grow every year. I understand that the Nez Perce National Forest has been spending nearly half their annual budget over the last few years just in fire related operations. Looking at the individual cost of these fires, that’s a lot of money out of the taxpayer’s pockets!
To make a long story short, something’s obviously got to give, and in this case it was traditional firefighting.
After much soul searching and brain storming I’m sure, the Forest Service has again changed their approach to wildland fires. Certainly a lot of fires will continue to be aggressively attacked, but not as many as we’ve seen in previous years. A lot more of the marginal fires will be used as WFU (wildland fire use) burns, and I suspect the majority of fires will be handled in a manner similar to what we’ve seen on the Rattlesnake, Concord, Raines, and Loon-Zena fires this year, they’ll be “managed” to achieve land use objectives. Rather than surrounding a fire with control lines and then extinguishing it, I expect we’ll see a lot fewer fire crews and engines during the summer, the judicious use of only a few fire lines, and a lot of helicopter bucket drops to cool hot spots and slow a fire’s advance. As we saw on the Rattlesnake fire, “high value” exposures will be protected as happened in Dixie, but the majority of the fire will be allowed to burn. The forest service insists this isn’t really anything new, but rather is a further development of their existing policies. The new decision criteria includes considering things like the property value at risk, potential hazards to firefighter lives, and the expected costs of extinguishment. It’s not a “Let it Burn” policy according to the forest service, but I suspect we’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference in many cases. I certainly can’t say I’m very happy with this change, but I can understand the reasoning behind it, and I can see where the Forest Service managers feel they have no other option.
Still, I drove to Boise Monday, by way of Highway 55. As I left town early in the morning, I noticed that there was a lot of smoke in the sky. Guess what… that smoke plume continued all the way to Boise, making driving, and breathing, rather difficult. I also noticed that the Boise VA hospital had a lot of elderly veterans sitting around suffering from respiratory problems… brought on by that smoke I understand. Is this what we’re going to see every summer, for weeks on end? Considering the impact local citizens wishes have on the doings of the US government, we’re going to have to learn to live with it I guess.
The big impact will be on private land owners. Protecting private property adjacent to forest lands is expensive, particularly so if the land owner hasn’t made any previous effort to prepare for a fire. Far to many property owners have ignored the possibility of fires right up to the time it crossed their boundaries, and then they expect the firefighters to save everything for them. With this new policy the land owner will have to assume a large part of the responsibility by removing those excessive fuels, assuring that his buildings are at least somewhat fire resistant, and probably installing a minimal fire fighting capability as well. From a fire tactics viewpoint I see no reason why this policy wouldn’t work, but it’s going to be mighty hard to tell dedicated firefighters to “back off” when a fire starts moving on someone’s home. From a purely economic viewpoint however, I guess it makes good sense.
People are going to have to get real serious about the objectives behind the “Fire Wise” and “Fire Safe” programs on their private property. Yes, brush and dead trees can be cleared from the property. Yes, excessive trees can be thinned out. Yes, tall grass can be mowed. And yes, buildings can be made more fire resistant as well. In some cases this can get pretty expensive for the individual, as well as requiring a summer long ongoing effort to maintain that fire safe condition.
Still, I don’t think I’d want to bet the farm that we won’t have a fire in any particular year either.
Monday, September 10, 2007
TSA Stunts
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." -- President James Madison: 1751-1836
Hang on to your hats folks, the “Thought Police” are coming! Those wonderful folks from Homeland Security, whose job it is to secure your safety and well being, are at it again. I suppose it was inevitable, but now even a frown or grimace can get you in trouble with the cops. The federal Transportation Security Administration’s “specially trained” security personnel will soon be watching travelers for “micro-expressions” that reveal insidious intentions at airports. These agents, in their incessant search for potential terrorists, and who hold your fate in their hands, have been given the name of "Behavior Detection Officers."
There really is a field of study called “Micro-Expressions” (and it’s apparently called a “science” by some), that has decided when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. Oh-Kay, that makes sense… I think. The experts have also determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception. Still... if these government specialists are really so talented, wouldn't they be working in ‘Vegas, instead of staring at a bunch of ugly people at the airport?
Fear and disgust in an airport terminal building!? Or even at the bus depot? I guess the genius that thought this one up hasn’t used public transportation very much over the last few years. It’s bad enough that we could be trapped in a crowded airplane with no food or water, and with nonworking toilets, for hours on end. Add in the unwashed bodies, screaming kids, marginal drunks, and the gossiping stranger that wants to tell you all about her neighbor’s terrible grandkids. And that’s on a good day! What about the woman who is getting on a plane for one last visit with a dying relative? Or the man traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist? Or how about the guy who just had a fight with his wife? What kind of mood are you going to be in when the baggage agent tells you your only clean clothes are on their way to Pretoria, while you’re heading for Paducah! So while TSA employees are confiscating your nail clippers and water bottle, they’re going to be secretly looking for some telltale sign of terrorist intent in a grimace, a sigh, a crinkled nose?
The face police, already working at more than a dozen U.S. airports, aren’t identified as such. But the watcher could be at the baggage counter, the ticket counter, or near the metal detectors and X-ray machines. The Transportation Security Administration hopes to have as many as 500 “Behavior Detection Officers” on the job by the end of 2008. One scenario is that an officer might move in to “help” a passenger retrieve their belongings after they’ve been screened. And then the officer will ask where the passenger is headed. If the passenger’s reaction sets off alarm bells in the officer’s well-trained mind, another officer will move in and detain them. Dunno about anyone else, but if a total stranger moved in on me like that and started asking a lot of questions, I’d probably tell them where to get off at, and throw in a few choice expletives for good measure as I stomped off. Of course, I probably won’t be stomping very far.
I suppose that in light of the inept, kneejerk reactions and poorly thought out airport security rules since 9-11, something as silly as a Behavior Detection Officer isn’t too much to be expected. Personally I'm of the opinion that the Transportation Security Agency is a world class joke, and will do little to stop another terrorist attack. It's little more than another case of Government throwing money at a problem, providing additional pork to friends of the administration, and trying to lull and pacify the public into believing that we’re safe. That sounds like a serious violation of the public trust to me.
It's difficult enough to travel given the snafu at the airports, lousy service, and lack of consideration by the airlines. Now we are to be detained for our thoughts! This is terrifying, yet the American people will accept it in the name of security. Ben Franklin was right you know, those who would give up liberty for some small measure of security deserve neither liberty nor security. After all, how can we be a free people if we can be detained based on no more evidence than a facial expression?
I believe that it’s definitely time to terminate the TSA. It a waste of time, money, and our freedom. It wastes thousands of man years waiting in line for a nearly undetectable gain in security. It created hundreds of thousands of parasitic federal brown shirts that will take a huge nation wide political effort to eliminate. (Incidentally, our current use of the word “homeland” is quite similar to Hitler’s use of “Fatherland”, and Stalin’s use of “Motherland”). In the name of security we have instituted a Soviet style system of internal passports for airline travel called the “Real ID”, and now we get the TSA thought police as well!
So this is what the government passes for "science," nowadays? What’s next, hiring out of work psychics? That probably would be much more efficient and accurate than reading facial expressions. I suppose this really shouldn't be surprising, coming from the knuckle-draggers that populate the federal government. To them, science is for those weirdo’s that do something like work for a living, instead of playing official government video games all day long. It’s nice to see that our government has all the extra tax money to spend on a science such as this.
I think this is probably the most insidious assault on the "American way of life" since 9/11! Part of our freedom relies on our personal duty and honor, and part of it relies on our being able to kick over the traces when the government does something really stupid. After all, the Constitution itself states that if it doesn't work anymore, Americans have the responsibility to throw it out and start over. Nothing is said about turning our country into a Soviet style big-brother state.
Welcome to America under the “New World Order”, and remember to think only “Happy Thoughts” whenever you’re outside the confines of your house, hopefully that will save you from being added to the Terrorist Suspect List.
Hang on to your hats folks, the “Thought Police” are coming! Those wonderful folks from Homeland Security, whose job it is to secure your safety and well being, are at it again. I suppose it was inevitable, but now even a frown or grimace can get you in trouble with the cops. The federal Transportation Security Administration’s “specially trained” security personnel will soon be watching travelers for “micro-expressions” that reveal insidious intentions at airports. These agents, in their incessant search for potential terrorists, and who hold your fate in their hands, have been given the name of "Behavior Detection Officers."
There really is a field of study called “Micro-Expressions” (and it’s apparently called a “science” by some), that has decided when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. Oh-Kay, that makes sense… I think. The experts have also determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception. Still... if these government specialists are really so talented, wouldn't they be working in ‘Vegas, instead of staring at a bunch of ugly people at the airport?
Fear and disgust in an airport terminal building!? Or even at the bus depot? I guess the genius that thought this one up hasn’t used public transportation very much over the last few years. It’s bad enough that we could be trapped in a crowded airplane with no food or water, and with nonworking toilets, for hours on end. Add in the unwashed bodies, screaming kids, marginal drunks, and the gossiping stranger that wants to tell you all about her neighbor’s terrible grandkids. And that’s on a good day! What about the woman who is getting on a plane for one last visit with a dying relative? Or the man traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist? Or how about the guy who just had a fight with his wife? What kind of mood are you going to be in when the baggage agent tells you your only clean clothes are on their way to Pretoria, while you’re heading for Paducah! So while TSA employees are confiscating your nail clippers and water bottle, they’re going to be secretly looking for some telltale sign of terrorist intent in a grimace, a sigh, a crinkled nose?
The face police, already working at more than a dozen U.S. airports, aren’t identified as such. But the watcher could be at the baggage counter, the ticket counter, or near the metal detectors and X-ray machines. The Transportation Security Administration hopes to have as many as 500 “Behavior Detection Officers” on the job by the end of 2008. One scenario is that an officer might move in to “help” a passenger retrieve their belongings after they’ve been screened. And then the officer will ask where the passenger is headed. If the passenger’s reaction sets off alarm bells in the officer’s well-trained mind, another officer will move in and detain them. Dunno about anyone else, but if a total stranger moved in on me like that and started asking a lot of questions, I’d probably tell them where to get off at, and throw in a few choice expletives for good measure as I stomped off. Of course, I probably won’t be stomping very far.
I suppose that in light of the inept, kneejerk reactions and poorly thought out airport security rules since 9-11, something as silly as a Behavior Detection Officer isn’t too much to be expected. Personally I'm of the opinion that the Transportation Security Agency is a world class joke, and will do little to stop another terrorist attack. It's little more than another case of Government throwing money at a problem, providing additional pork to friends of the administration, and trying to lull and pacify the public into believing that we’re safe. That sounds like a serious violation of the public trust to me.
It's difficult enough to travel given the snafu at the airports, lousy service, and lack of consideration by the airlines. Now we are to be detained for our thoughts! This is terrifying, yet the American people will accept it in the name of security. Ben Franklin was right you know, those who would give up liberty for some small measure of security deserve neither liberty nor security. After all, how can we be a free people if we can be detained based on no more evidence than a facial expression?
I believe that it’s definitely time to terminate the TSA. It a waste of time, money, and our freedom. It wastes thousands of man years waiting in line for a nearly undetectable gain in security. It created hundreds of thousands of parasitic federal brown shirts that will take a huge nation wide political effort to eliminate. (Incidentally, our current use of the word “homeland” is quite similar to Hitler’s use of “Fatherland”, and Stalin’s use of “Motherland”). In the name of security we have instituted a Soviet style system of internal passports for airline travel called the “Real ID”, and now we get the TSA thought police as well!
So this is what the government passes for "science," nowadays? What’s next, hiring out of work psychics? That probably would be much more efficient and accurate than reading facial expressions. I suppose this really shouldn't be surprising, coming from the knuckle-draggers that populate the federal government. To them, science is for those weirdo’s that do something like work for a living, instead of playing official government video games all day long. It’s nice to see that our government has all the extra tax money to spend on a science such as this.
I think this is probably the most insidious assault on the "American way of life" since 9/11! Part of our freedom relies on our personal duty and honor, and part of it relies on our being able to kick over the traces when the government does something really stupid. After all, the Constitution itself states that if it doesn't work anymore, Americans have the responsibility to throw it out and start over. Nothing is said about turning our country into a Soviet style big-brother state.
Welcome to America under the “New World Order”, and remember to think only “Happy Thoughts” whenever you’re outside the confines of your house, hopefully that will save you from being added to the Terrorist Suspect List.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Politics and Larry Craig
One of the problems of writing for a weekly paper is that no matter how hard you try, you’re almost always a week behind the times. For that reason I generally don’t have much to say about whatever shenanigans the politicians are up to today, but rather I growl a lot about the various situations they let develop, and of course the various political views that I consider downright dumb. Right now however, I think I can fit a current event in with my usual soapbox rant.
The great American political campaign season is upon us, whether we’re ready for it or not, and I fear a bit early as well. In our usual circus sideshow manner, the Republicans are happily slamming the Democrats, the Democrats are hurling insults with the best of ‘em, and the mainstream media is flaming everybody in sight. The religious right is calling down fire and brimstone on evildoers, the utopian left is screaming that everyone in the world is wrong except themselves, the Libertarians are shaking their fists at almost everybody, and the talk show hosts are happily sharpening their fangs in hopes of improving their network ratings.
When I started writing this column I wrote an “introductory” piece in which I claimed that “a few of my ‘pet peeves’ are hard core environuts, left wing bleeding heart liberal utopians, opinionated people, loud music, lawyers, and the bureaucracy.” For the most part I’ll stand with that list, but as happens every other year during political campaigns I’ll temporarily add “Political Candidates” as well. While I generally get along fairly well with most individuals, I do think that humanity as a group is probably the dumbest bunch of ignorant “sheeple” ever to come down the pike, and when it comes to politics P.T. Barnum was right, there’s a sucker born every minute. I learned a long time ago that in political campaigning it doesn’t matter what you actually think or believe, it’s that you tell this crowd, right here, right now, what they want to hear, and they’ll follow you anywhere.
It seems that we’ve got an entire herd of professional politicians running for president next year, all are busily telling us how great they are, how good their ideas are, how they’ve got so much political experience, how terrible their opponents are, etc. etc. ad nauseaum. But rather than telling us how they’d solve the problems facing the nation, they’re happily picking on the opposition and little else. The mud slinging in our national political campaigns is, in my view, utterly uncalled for, and also quite demeaning to everyone involved, slinger and slingee alike. We can all remember the accusations tossed at both candidates in our last presidential campaign, and unfortunately I’d expect to see more of the same next year. The fuss extends to congressional seats as well, witness the constant witch hunts and sometimes wild accusations in the mainstream media. The current commotion about Sen. Larry Craig’s problems are a good case in point, where, because he’s a Republican, the Democrats are thirsting for blood, and the left wing media will settle for nothing less than his head on a platter. Were he a democrat I’d expect the republicans to be out sharpening their skinning knives, and the media to be stumbling all over themselves in explaining that it’s “really nothing to be concerned about”. This constant warring between the radical right and the looney left does nothing more than keep everyone in a turmoil, confuse the issues, and is a great disservice to the American voter.
On a more local level, here in Idaho at least, there’s plenty of glowering, grumbling and growling of course, but fortunately we don’t usually see the massive character assassination efforts that seem to be the stock in trade elsewhere. At least I haven’t heard of one candidate calling another a horse thief lately. Personally I’d think that a simple “he’s got the job and I want it” along with “I think I can do the job better” statements would suffice. Heck, I know I could do a better job of running NASA than the current crop of bureaucrats and political appointees, but then I don’t really expect the President to offer me that position in the immediate future either.
In a recent news article, James Weatherby, a political science professor at Boise State University, reportedly said that “Idaho Republicans possess a fiercely independent streak, characterized by a healthy dose of libertarian values and distrust of the federal government and the media. They generally hold deep religious beliefs and conservative social values. It all makes it hard sometimes to predict exactly how Idahoans would vote or how Idaho politicians will act on certain issues”. I think that he could say much the same for most Idaho Democrats as well. ‘Course we’ve got our share of nuts from both sides, although thankfully not as many as the more populous states produce. I’ve lived in several states through the years, and managed to get myself involved with the fringes of the local political scene in both Arizona and Nevada. As an interested observer of the situation here in Idaho, I think I much prefer the way things are done here. In the Arizona I knew thirty years ago, a mob of democrats would be running the streets with tar and feathers right now, looking for Sen. Craig. In Nevada they’d have been measuring him for a neck-tie party based purely on unfounded rumor! So far at least, most Idahoans are keeping fairly quiet, and I hope waiting for the final results of whatever investigation comes of this. But please keep in mind that even after months of investigating a few unsubstantiated allegations, the Idaho Statesman has yet to find a “smoking gun”. If the allegations can be proven, then yes, Larry will have to go. But “innocent until proven guilty” is a cornerstone of our justice system, and nothing has been proven yet.
Personally I don’t know what happened. Thanks to the internet I’ve read the police reports, a number of raving news reports, a lot of vague political forecasts, and of course the inevitable rabid commentary from the looney left and the gay community. The police report seems rather ambiguous, and everything else seems to come from people with an axe to grind. At present the situation looks to me like a minor incident (and a bad mistake on Larry’s part) that’s being turned into a mountainous event in the name of political advantage. I do know that I’ve met and spoken with Larry Craig on several occasions, and in general he appears to be a sincere, straightforward individual who really is interested in solving problems facing Idaho and Idahoans. At least he’d listen to us, unlike a lot of other politicians I’ve known. And personally, I rather liked him. I also think that whatever the outcome of this sorry situation, the people of Idaho owe him a vote of thanks for past services rendered.
I will make one recommendation to travelers though. If you’ve got one of those portable music machines plugged into your ear, don’t, under any circumstances, tap your foot in time to the music. Lord only knows what kind of signals you might be sending, or to whom!
The great American political campaign season is upon us, whether we’re ready for it or not, and I fear a bit early as well. In our usual circus sideshow manner, the Republicans are happily slamming the Democrats, the Democrats are hurling insults with the best of ‘em, and the mainstream media is flaming everybody in sight. The religious right is calling down fire and brimstone on evildoers, the utopian left is screaming that everyone in the world is wrong except themselves, the Libertarians are shaking their fists at almost everybody, and the talk show hosts are happily sharpening their fangs in hopes of improving their network ratings.
When I started writing this column I wrote an “introductory” piece in which I claimed that “a few of my ‘pet peeves’ are hard core environuts, left wing bleeding heart liberal utopians, opinionated people, loud music, lawyers, and the bureaucracy.” For the most part I’ll stand with that list, but as happens every other year during political campaigns I’ll temporarily add “Political Candidates” as well. While I generally get along fairly well with most individuals, I do think that humanity as a group is probably the dumbest bunch of ignorant “sheeple” ever to come down the pike, and when it comes to politics P.T. Barnum was right, there’s a sucker born every minute. I learned a long time ago that in political campaigning it doesn’t matter what you actually think or believe, it’s that you tell this crowd, right here, right now, what they want to hear, and they’ll follow you anywhere.
It seems that we’ve got an entire herd of professional politicians running for president next year, all are busily telling us how great they are, how good their ideas are, how they’ve got so much political experience, how terrible their opponents are, etc. etc. ad nauseaum. But rather than telling us how they’d solve the problems facing the nation, they’re happily picking on the opposition and little else. The mud slinging in our national political campaigns is, in my view, utterly uncalled for, and also quite demeaning to everyone involved, slinger and slingee alike. We can all remember the accusations tossed at both candidates in our last presidential campaign, and unfortunately I’d expect to see more of the same next year. The fuss extends to congressional seats as well, witness the constant witch hunts and sometimes wild accusations in the mainstream media. The current commotion about Sen. Larry Craig’s problems are a good case in point, where, because he’s a Republican, the Democrats are thirsting for blood, and the left wing media will settle for nothing less than his head on a platter. Were he a democrat I’d expect the republicans to be out sharpening their skinning knives, and the media to be stumbling all over themselves in explaining that it’s “really nothing to be concerned about”. This constant warring between the radical right and the looney left does nothing more than keep everyone in a turmoil, confuse the issues, and is a great disservice to the American voter.
On a more local level, here in Idaho at least, there’s plenty of glowering, grumbling and growling of course, but fortunately we don’t usually see the massive character assassination efforts that seem to be the stock in trade elsewhere. At least I haven’t heard of one candidate calling another a horse thief lately. Personally I’d think that a simple “he’s got the job and I want it” along with “I think I can do the job better” statements would suffice. Heck, I know I could do a better job of running NASA than the current crop of bureaucrats and political appointees, but then I don’t really expect the President to offer me that position in the immediate future either.
In a recent news article, James Weatherby, a political science professor at Boise State University, reportedly said that “Idaho Republicans possess a fiercely independent streak, characterized by a healthy dose of libertarian values and distrust of the federal government and the media. They generally hold deep religious beliefs and conservative social values. It all makes it hard sometimes to predict exactly how Idahoans would vote or how Idaho politicians will act on certain issues”. I think that he could say much the same for most Idaho Democrats as well. ‘Course we’ve got our share of nuts from both sides, although thankfully not as many as the more populous states produce. I’ve lived in several states through the years, and managed to get myself involved with the fringes of the local political scene in both Arizona and Nevada. As an interested observer of the situation here in Idaho, I think I much prefer the way things are done here. In the Arizona I knew thirty years ago, a mob of democrats would be running the streets with tar and feathers right now, looking for Sen. Craig. In Nevada they’d have been measuring him for a neck-tie party based purely on unfounded rumor! So far at least, most Idahoans are keeping fairly quiet, and I hope waiting for the final results of whatever investigation comes of this. But please keep in mind that even after months of investigating a few unsubstantiated allegations, the Idaho Statesman has yet to find a “smoking gun”. If the allegations can be proven, then yes, Larry will have to go. But “innocent until proven guilty” is a cornerstone of our justice system, and nothing has been proven yet.
Personally I don’t know what happened. Thanks to the internet I’ve read the police reports, a number of raving news reports, a lot of vague political forecasts, and of course the inevitable rabid commentary from the looney left and the gay community. The police report seems rather ambiguous, and everything else seems to come from people with an axe to grind. At present the situation looks to me like a minor incident (and a bad mistake on Larry’s part) that’s being turned into a mountainous event in the name of political advantage. I do know that I’ve met and spoken with Larry Craig on several occasions, and in general he appears to be a sincere, straightforward individual who really is interested in solving problems facing Idaho and Idahoans. At least he’d listen to us, unlike a lot of other politicians I’ve known. And personally, I rather liked him. I also think that whatever the outcome of this sorry situation, the people of Idaho owe him a vote of thanks for past services rendered.
I will make one recommendation to travelers though. If you’ve got one of those portable music machines plugged into your ear, don’t, under any circumstances, tap your foot in time to the music. Lord only knows what kind of signals you might be sending, or to whom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)