With the presidential election fast approaching, the politicians are all making fine sounding pronouncements of what legislation they hope to pass, and of what they’ll accomplish once in office. Some of these things they could actually do, if they can get a majority of congressmen to agree with their ideas, and if they can find the funding. A lot of the things they promise, they simply can’t do, for any number of perfectly sound reasons.
The war in Iraq appears to be a leading bone of contention, with the Democrats generally wanting to pull out, and the Republicans generally figuring to stay the course. Personally I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, as we had to many other and less combative ways and means of eliminating Hussein as a power in the mid-east. But the fact remains, we did invade, we did eliminate the existing power structure, American air strikes certainly didn’t do the Iraqi infrastructure any good, economic sanctions did more harm to the Iraqi people than to the regime, and now we more or less demand that they form a democratic government that meets with our approval. We’ve made ourselves responsible for the present mess, and like it of not, we’re morally responsible for cleaning things up. Then to, if the United States abruptly walks away from Iraq, we’d be leaving a power vacuum and a full blown civil war in our wake, one that can only be advantageous to our real enemy, fundamentalist Islam. Consider also, if we walk, there’s no reason for any of the mid-eastern peoples or governments to ever again trust the United States, or believe anything we say. We’d have the same sort of situation that followed our surrender in Vietnam, where our friends of 1970 were left in the lurch, and they certainly don’t trust our word very far today.
Another favored talking point concerns taxes. Like most Americans I’d surely like to see a massive tax cut as proposed by many of the republican candidates. But that isn’t going to do this country any good at all! We don’t need the tax increase and massive expenditures proposed by a number of democratic candidates either. What I’d propose is that we leave the taxes at about the current level, make the tax system more equitable for all of us, and devise a massive cut in expenditures. With that, we could use the surplus to pay down the debt, and edge away from a looming national bankruptcy. Despite the claims of Wall Street financial gurus, it’s not the job of the US government (or American taxpayers) to keep their stockholders rolling in dough! What do they expect the government to do when the treasury runs dry, or the taxpayers run out of patience, start selling the rest of us into slavery!? The stock market is where you put some of the extra cash you’ve got on hand and don’t know what else to do with. It’s not supposed to be a national gambling casino in which you bet your life savings so that some business executive can make an obscene salary, leaving the US taxpayer to pick up the tab when things go sour!
Yet another point of contention is national security, mostly the arguments over the department of homeland security. Some people want to completely eliminate the whole thing, while others want to massively expand the department and its powers. I for one fail to understand just why we need such a department in the first place, unless it’s to provide work for a lot of unemployed paper shufflers. I’d think the federal money being tossed at homeland security would be much better spent in securing our borders, and perhaps helping the Canadians secure theirs as well. Instead, the government has pretty well managed to ignore the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rapidly turning us into a police state, while managing to antagonize a lot of formerly friendly countries with a flurry of senseless rules and regulations about passports, secure identification cards, and air travel. Our borders are effectively wide open as is demonstrated by the continuing flood of illegal immigrants. Our ports certainly aren’t secure despite all the promises from Washington. What I understand is called “airline security” consists of a bunch of people confiscating nail clippers and bottled water, while looking for hidden facial expressions. Profiling is out of the question for political reasons, despite the terrorist threat coming from a known and specific group of people. Instead of looking at wild-eyed Arabic types, we have a no-fly list of “terrorist suspects” that might have been randomly selected from the local phone book!
The government has created yet another layer of supervision for the various intelligence agencies, with of course yet another hidden budget. I find it quite strange that we need a new agency to do exactly the job that the CIA was created to do back in the 1940’s, that of overseeing all US intelligence efforts! For decades the government has ignored the interagency turf wars in the intelligence community, and has not supported the CIA mandate in doing its job. Instead, the agency takes the rap whenever we have a perceived intelligence failure, no matter which agency originated the problem. How about we eliminate this “Intelligence Czar” position (and the entire office), and just enforce the rules allowing the CIA to do what it’s supposed to be doing?
The last newsletter I received from Sen. Larry Craig gave the results of a straw poll conducted among Idahoans, indicating what subjects they felt were most important, and should have a high priority in being addressed by Congress. 31.6% felt that immigration was the most important subject, closely followed by the war in Iraq with 28.0%. 9.5% felt that the economy should receive immediate attention, 6.9% were greatly concerned with health care, and only 4.8% indicated that national security was of major importance. Following the top five, only 4.4% of the respondents were worried about Congressional ethics.
Strangely enough, I would think that ethics and morality, not just in congress either, would be considered a very important subject by most Americans. After all, the folks we elect to various government offices are representing us before the entire world. These people hold the reputation of our nation, the well being of our citizens, indeed our very lives, in their hands! The President of the United States, with his red and gold phones, controls more naked power than any other man in the history of the world. I for one certainly don’t wish to have my life decided by anyone who would sell my future (such as it is), to the highest bidder! Public office is far to important to be decided by voters considering little more than physical appearances and trivial personalities. I’d much rather have a crotchety guy like Harry Truman in the white house, than another photogenic Slick Willie Clinton! There isn’t a one of the leading candidates today, of either party, that I’d trust to take out the trash, much less lead this country in what’s proving to be a very dangerous 21st century!
Perhaps the voters should do some really serious thinking about the issues and the candidates, before the 2008 election rolls around.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Candidates
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?
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 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!
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Fire Problems
So far I’ve made two trips to the Dixie area to report on the Rattlesnake fire efforts, and two trips down to the river looking over the Poe Cabin fire. From that, I think I can safely say that nobody from the area residents to the firefighters are all that happy with this weeks old situation, and that everyone involved is making an effort to resolve the problem. Certainly the rest of us in the county aren’t very happy with choking, coughing, and hacking on the incessant smoke clouds that blanket the prairie, no matter where the smoke comes from.
While it’s not a unique situation, the extensive grasslands on the river make fighting the Poe Cabin fire difficult but not impossible, and thus we see this fire at least is nearly contained. Unfortunately for us all, the terrain, fuels and our summer weather patterns make any direct suppression efforts (and thus quick extinguishment) very different on the Rattlesnake fire, as well as being extremely hazardous to the firefighters. Much the same situation exists to the south where the Loon-Zena fire, and the Raines fire are having the same problems. (All in all, with twenty going fires we’ve lost nearly half a million acres so far this summer.) Remember that these fires are generally burning in very steep terrain difficult if not impossible for motorized equipment to operate in. The fuels include deep grass, heavy brush, and dense Lodgepole Pine jumbles in which a high percentage of the trees have been killed by bugs. You might also keep in mind that handline crews would have to work upslope of an active fire, with unburned fuels between them and the fire, something that is never a very good idea! All in all, we have the necessary ingredients of a firefighter’s nightmare, with the potential of making the 1994 South Canyon fire (Storm King Mountain) tragedy seem like child’s play!
The primary firefighting efforts on the Rattlesnake fire are intended to protect the communities of Dixie, Comstock, and now Orogrande from the fire if, or should I say when, it comes boiling out of the canyons. In addition, helicopter bucket drops are being used to cool hotspots in an effort to keep the fire from moving out of those same canyons, a very good idea considering that we can’t with any degree of safety put people in there to actively work on the fire.
The question that quickly comes to my mind however, is how did we get into this sorry situation in the first place? Consider the problems that the fire crews are facing. The steep terrain features we can blame on the action of the Salmon River over quite a few thousand years I guess, and there isn’t much we can do about that. Nor can we do much about the weather conditions, as much as we’d like to. The fire fuels on the other hand are something we could, and should, have done something about long ago. It’s my understanding that those dense stands of Lodgepole Pine are partly the result of the disastrous 1910 fire, making these trees nearly 100 years old. Generally these dense stands should have been logged, thinned out years ago, but weren’t for various reasons. For that I blame the environmental activists, and the federal courts, which seem to know little more about forestry than I know about the finer nuances of law, despite all the weeping and wailing about our country’s mistreated forests.
Next, enter the infamous Mountain Pine Beetle. The beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, is a member of an insect class known as bark beetles. Except when the adults migrate and attack new trees, the mountain pine beetle completes its life cycle under the bark. They attack and kill lodgepole, ponderosa, sugar, and western white pine by tunneling under the bark, where over a short time (sometimes as little as two weeks) the trees are overwhelmed as the phloem layer is damaged enough to cut off the flow of water and nutrients, leaving the tree to starve to death. Beetle outbreaks frequently develop in dense stands of pole-sized pines, where outbreaks often kill millions of trees. During epidemics, tree mortality can alter the entire ecosystem, where often the beetles have almost totally depleted pine forests. The profusion of beetle-killed trees can severely affect wildlife habitat as well, by changing the cover available and hindering wildlife movement. Even worse, the dead trees left standing are a source of fire fuels that well, as forests are prone to do, burn, unless they’re somehow removed. After all, a lightning strike in the top of a dead, pitchy, lodgepole is somewhat akin to striking a kitchen match in a pile of gasoline soaked tinder!
High-risk lodgepole pine stands have an average age of more than 80 years, an average diameter of more than 8 inches, and a climate suitable for beetle development. According to numerous studies, thinning those stands of lodgepole and ponderosa pines will generally prevent, or at least minimize, beetle-caused tree losses. However, once a large outbreak has developed, salvage logging of infested material to reduce future tree mortality generally will not be effective. It’s possible to prevent infestation with specialized sprays on high value trees, but they need to be applied before the tree is infected and the cost of such treatments is excludes any large-scale application. Once a mountain pine beetle outbreak begins, it can often only be stopped by thinning the trees ahead of the outbreak. More importantly, infestations can be prevented by thinning those dense stands before crown closure, an operation that not only increases the vigor of the remaining trees, but also prevents the spread of an outbreak if individual trees have already been attacked.
Mountain pine beetles are a natural part of the ecosystem, and will never be completely eradicated. To keep the beetles at their normal numbers however, the causes of an outbreak must be removed. First and foremost, overstocked stands of timber need to be addressed by foresters, as overstocking causes trees to become highly competitive for the limited water, light, and nutrients available, and this quite naturally stunts their growth along with weakening their defenses against beetle attack. The beetles also carry spores of bluestain fungus which colonizes the sapwood and defeats the natural defenses of the tree. When lodgepole is young, it is able to resist infection by the fungus, with resistance increasing to about age 60, and then rapidly declines. The decline in resistance to bluestain fungus occurs when lodgepole pine is considered mature, and just when beetle outbreaks typically develop. Logging these dense lodgepole stands is one proven answer, which would make everyone happy if the logging of such small timber can be made economically viable. If standard logging isn’t an economical operation, then perhaps we could give the excess trees to somebody who could use them, forestry economics be dammed, just get them out of there! I know a lot of pole cutters that would be quite happy to remove as many of these excess trees as they can get if they don’t have to pay an arm and a leg for them! If, for one reason or another, thinning isn’t acceptable or possible, then the stands should most likely be burned out, with the general recommendation being a “patchwork” burn of six to ten acres per plot.
If nothing else, that sure would reduce the vast amounts of secondhand “government smoke” we’re being exposed to for much of each summer!
While it’s not a unique situation, the extensive grasslands on the river make fighting the Poe Cabin fire difficult but not impossible, and thus we see this fire at least is nearly contained. Unfortunately for us all, the terrain, fuels and our summer weather patterns make any direct suppression efforts (and thus quick extinguishment) very different on the Rattlesnake fire, as well as being extremely hazardous to the firefighters. Much the same situation exists to the south where the Loon-Zena fire, and the Raines fire are having the same problems. (All in all, with twenty going fires we’ve lost nearly half a million acres so far this summer.) Remember that these fires are generally burning in very steep terrain difficult if not impossible for motorized equipment to operate in. The fuels include deep grass, heavy brush, and dense Lodgepole Pine jumbles in which a high percentage of the trees have been killed by bugs. You might also keep in mind that handline crews would have to work upslope of an active fire, with unburned fuels between them and the fire, something that is never a very good idea! All in all, we have the necessary ingredients of a firefighter’s nightmare, with the potential of making the 1994 South Canyon fire (Storm King Mountain) tragedy seem like child’s play!
The primary firefighting efforts on the Rattlesnake fire are intended to protect the communities of Dixie, Comstock, and now Orogrande from the fire if, or should I say when, it comes boiling out of the canyons. In addition, helicopter bucket drops are being used to cool hotspots in an effort to keep the fire from moving out of those same canyons, a very good idea considering that we can’t with any degree of safety put people in there to actively work on the fire.
The question that quickly comes to my mind however, is how did we get into this sorry situation in the first place? Consider the problems that the fire crews are facing. The steep terrain features we can blame on the action of the Salmon River over quite a few thousand years I guess, and there isn’t much we can do about that. Nor can we do much about the weather conditions, as much as we’d like to. The fire fuels on the other hand are something we could, and should, have done something about long ago. It’s my understanding that those dense stands of Lodgepole Pine are partly the result of the disastrous 1910 fire, making these trees nearly 100 years old. Generally these dense stands should have been logged, thinned out years ago, but weren’t for various reasons. For that I blame the environmental activists, and the federal courts, which seem to know little more about forestry than I know about the finer nuances of law, despite all the weeping and wailing about our country’s mistreated forests.
Next, enter the infamous Mountain Pine Beetle. The beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, is a member of an insect class known as bark beetles. Except when the adults migrate and attack new trees, the mountain pine beetle completes its life cycle under the bark. They attack and kill lodgepole, ponderosa, sugar, and western white pine by tunneling under the bark, where over a short time (sometimes as little as two weeks) the trees are overwhelmed as the phloem layer is damaged enough to cut off the flow of water and nutrients, leaving the tree to starve to death. Beetle outbreaks frequently develop in dense stands of pole-sized pines, where outbreaks often kill millions of trees. During epidemics, tree mortality can alter the entire ecosystem, where often the beetles have almost totally depleted pine forests. The profusion of beetle-killed trees can severely affect wildlife habitat as well, by changing the cover available and hindering wildlife movement. Even worse, the dead trees left standing are a source of fire fuels that well, as forests are prone to do, burn, unless they’re somehow removed. After all, a lightning strike in the top of a dead, pitchy, lodgepole is somewhat akin to striking a kitchen match in a pile of gasoline soaked tinder!
High-risk lodgepole pine stands have an average age of more than 80 years, an average diameter of more than 8 inches, and a climate suitable for beetle development. According to numerous studies, thinning those stands of lodgepole and ponderosa pines will generally prevent, or at least minimize, beetle-caused tree losses. However, once a large outbreak has developed, salvage logging of infested material to reduce future tree mortality generally will not be effective. It’s possible to prevent infestation with specialized sprays on high value trees, but they need to be applied before the tree is infected and the cost of such treatments is excludes any large-scale application. Once a mountain pine beetle outbreak begins, it can often only be stopped by thinning the trees ahead of the outbreak. More importantly, infestations can be prevented by thinning those dense stands before crown closure, an operation that not only increases the vigor of the remaining trees, but also prevents the spread of an outbreak if individual trees have already been attacked.
Mountain pine beetles are a natural part of the ecosystem, and will never be completely eradicated. To keep the beetles at their normal numbers however, the causes of an outbreak must be removed. First and foremost, overstocked stands of timber need to be addressed by foresters, as overstocking causes trees to become highly competitive for the limited water, light, and nutrients available, and this quite naturally stunts their growth along with weakening their defenses against beetle attack. The beetles also carry spores of bluestain fungus which colonizes the sapwood and defeats the natural defenses of the tree. When lodgepole is young, it is able to resist infection by the fungus, with resistance increasing to about age 60, and then rapidly declines. The decline in resistance to bluestain fungus occurs when lodgepole pine is considered mature, and just when beetle outbreaks typically develop. Logging these dense lodgepole stands is one proven answer, which would make everyone happy if the logging of such small timber can be made economically viable. If standard logging isn’t an economical operation, then perhaps we could give the excess trees to somebody who could use them, forestry economics be dammed, just get them out of there! I know a lot of pole cutters that would be quite happy to remove as many of these excess trees as they can get if they don’t have to pay an arm and a leg for them! If, for one reason or another, thinning isn’t acceptable or possible, then the stands should most likely be burned out, with the general recommendation being a “patchwork” burn of six to ten acres per plot.
If nothing else, that sure would reduce the vast amounts of secondhand “government smoke” we’re being exposed to for much of each summer!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
RFID
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is an automatic identification system of storing and remotely retrieving computer data, using devices called “RFID tags” or “transponders”. An RFID tag is an object that can be stuck on or in a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification using radiowaves. Some tags can be read from several hundred meters away and well beyond line of sight. Most RFID tags contain at least two parts. One is an integrated circuit for storing and processing information, processing the radio signal, and perhaps other specialized functions. The second is an antenna for receiving and transmitting the signal. A technology called chipless RFID allows for discrete identification of tags without an integrated circuit, thereby allowing tags to be quite literally printed directly onto an object.
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a pervasive computing technology, often touted as the replacement for now traditional barcodes. Wireless identification capabilities promise to revolutionize industrial, commercial, and medical operations. The heart of the utility is that RFID makes gathering information about physical objects easy. Information about RFID tagged objects can be transmitted through physical barriers, and from quite some distance. These tags could turn our interactions with the national computing infrastructure into something subconscious leading investors, inventors, and manufacturers to adopt RFID technology for a wide array of applications. RFID tags could help combat the counterfeiting of goods like designer sneakers, pharmaceutical drugs, and money. RFID-based automatic checkout systems might tally up and pay our bills at supermarkets, gas stations, and highway toll stations. We reaffirm our position as “top of the food chain” by RFID tagging cows, pigs, birds, and pets, thus enabling ingrained quality control and infectious animal disease tracking. RFID technology also manages our supply chains, mediates our access to buildings, tracks our kids, and defends against grave robbers. If the family dog and cat have RFID pet identification chips implanted in them; and given the trends towards RFID use, their owner will be next in line.
RFID tags come in three varieties: passive, active, or semi-passive (also known as battery-assisted). Passive tags require no internal power source, whereas semi-passive and active tags require a power source, usually a small battery. Passive RFID tags use the minute electrical current induced in the antenna by the incoming radio frequency signal to provide enough power for the integrated circuit in the tag to power up and transmit a response. That response is not limited to an ID number, but can contain a programmable memory for storing data. Passive tags have a practical read distances ranging from about 10 cm (4 in.) up to a few meters,depending on the radio frequency and antenna size. Unlike passive tags, active RFID tags have their own internal battery which is used to power the integrated circuits and broadcast the signal to the reader. Active tags are typically much more reliable than passive tags due to the ability for active tags to conduct a "session" with a reader. Active tags, due to their battery power, also transmit at higher power levels than passive tags, allowing them to be more effective in "RF challenged" environments like water (including humans/cattle, which are mostly water), metal (shipping containers, vehicles), or at longer distances. Many active tags today have practical ranges of hundreds of meters, and a battery life of up to 10 years. Semi-passive tags are similar to active tags as they have their own power source, but the battery is used just to power the microchip and not broadcast a signal. The RF energy is reflected back to the reader like a passive tag.
Basically, there are also three different kinds of RFID tags based on their attachment with the object to be identified, attachable, implantable and insertion tags. In addition to these conventional RFID tags, Eastman Kodak Company has filed patent applications for monitoring the ingestion of medicine, with a digestible tag. Implantable RFID chips designed for animal tagging are now being used in humans as well. An early experiment with RFID implants was conducted by British professor Kevin Warwick, who implanted a chip in his arm in 1998. Night clubs in Spain and in The Netherlands now commonly use an implantable chip to identify their VIP customers, who in turn use it to pay for drinks. In 2004, the Mexican Attorney General's office implanted 18 of its staff members with the Verichip to control access to a secure data room. (This number has been mis-reported as 160 or 180 staff members.)
The use of RFID technology has engendered considerable controversy and even product boycotts by consumer privacy advocates who refer to RFID tags as "spychips". The four main concerns regarding RFID are: The purchaser of an item will not necessarily be aware of the presence of the tag or be able to remove it. The tag can be read at a distance without the knowledge of the individual. If a tagged item is paid for by credit card or in conjunction with a “product loyalty” card, then it would be possible to indirectly deduce the identity of the purchaser by reading the unique ID of that item (contained in the RFID tag). The EPC global system of tags create globally unique serial numbers for all products. Most concerns revolve around the fact that RFID tags affixed to products remain functional even after the products have been purchased and taken home and thus can be used for surveillance and other purposes unrelated to their supply chain inventory functions.
Critics from the Christian community believe that RFID tagging could represent the mark of the beast” (666) mentioned in the Book of Revelation (Revelations 13:16). Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre, authors of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID, wrote a new book on the subject from a Christian perspective. John Conner, leader of an organization called "The Resistance of Christ" also believes there is such a connection.
Even worse, RFID can be successfully “hacked” by pranksters, bored kids, or criminals with a specific target in mind. Years after the successful introduction of RFID-based pet tagging, one veterinarian's pet identification system started displaying odd behavior. First, the RFID reader seemed to be reporting incorrect pet data. A couple hours later, the system seemed to be erasing data from pets' RFID tags. Then the display on the pet identification computer froze and displayed the message: “All your pet are belong to us.” Tag input data can be used by hackers to access normally secure computer systems. This is old news in the computer industry, but it has not prevented RFID system designers from implicitly trusting the integrity of data provided by RFID tags.
From my experiences with computer “glitches” over the years, and no more than I trust the reliability of anything computerized, you can picture my eyebrows raised over that one.
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a pervasive computing technology, often touted as the replacement for now traditional barcodes. Wireless identification capabilities promise to revolutionize industrial, commercial, and medical operations. The heart of the utility is that RFID makes gathering information about physical objects easy. Information about RFID tagged objects can be transmitted through physical barriers, and from quite some distance. These tags could turn our interactions with the national computing infrastructure into something subconscious leading investors, inventors, and manufacturers to adopt RFID technology for a wide array of applications. RFID tags could help combat the counterfeiting of goods like designer sneakers, pharmaceutical drugs, and money. RFID-based automatic checkout systems might tally up and pay our bills at supermarkets, gas stations, and highway toll stations. We reaffirm our position as “top of the food chain” by RFID tagging cows, pigs, birds, and pets, thus enabling ingrained quality control and infectious animal disease tracking. RFID technology also manages our supply chains, mediates our access to buildings, tracks our kids, and defends against grave robbers. If the family dog and cat have RFID pet identification chips implanted in them; and given the trends towards RFID use, their owner will be next in line.
RFID tags come in three varieties: passive, active, or semi-passive (also known as battery-assisted). Passive tags require no internal power source, whereas semi-passive and active tags require a power source, usually a small battery. Passive RFID tags use the minute electrical current induced in the antenna by the incoming radio frequency signal to provide enough power for the integrated circuit in the tag to power up and transmit a response. That response is not limited to an ID number, but can contain a programmable memory for storing data. Passive tags have a practical read distances ranging from about 10 cm (4 in.) up to a few meters,depending on the radio frequency and antenna size. Unlike passive tags, active RFID tags have their own internal battery which is used to power the integrated circuits and broadcast the signal to the reader. Active tags are typically much more reliable than passive tags due to the ability for active tags to conduct a "session" with a reader. Active tags, due to their battery power, also transmit at higher power levels than passive tags, allowing them to be more effective in "RF challenged" environments like water (including humans/cattle, which are mostly water), metal (shipping containers, vehicles), or at longer distances. Many active tags today have practical ranges of hundreds of meters, and a battery life of up to 10 years. Semi-passive tags are similar to active tags as they have their own power source, but the battery is used just to power the microchip and not broadcast a signal. The RF energy is reflected back to the reader like a passive tag.
Basically, there are also three different kinds of RFID tags based on their attachment with the object to be identified, attachable, implantable and insertion tags. In addition to these conventional RFID tags, Eastman Kodak Company has filed patent applications for monitoring the ingestion of medicine, with a digestible tag. Implantable RFID chips designed for animal tagging are now being used in humans as well. An early experiment with RFID implants was conducted by British professor Kevin Warwick, who implanted a chip in his arm in 1998. Night clubs in Spain and in The Netherlands now commonly use an implantable chip to identify their VIP customers, who in turn use it to pay for drinks. In 2004, the Mexican Attorney General's office implanted 18 of its staff members with the Verichip to control access to a secure data room. (This number has been mis-reported as 160 or 180 staff members.)
The use of RFID technology has engendered considerable controversy and even product boycotts by consumer privacy advocates who refer to RFID tags as "spychips". The four main concerns regarding RFID are: The purchaser of an item will not necessarily be aware of the presence of the tag or be able to remove it. The tag can be read at a distance without the knowledge of the individual. If a tagged item is paid for by credit card or in conjunction with a “product loyalty” card, then it would be possible to indirectly deduce the identity of the purchaser by reading the unique ID of that item (contained in the RFID tag). The EPC global system of tags create globally unique serial numbers for all products. Most concerns revolve around the fact that RFID tags affixed to products remain functional even after the products have been purchased and taken home and thus can be used for surveillance and other purposes unrelated to their supply chain inventory functions.
Critics from the Christian community believe that RFID tagging could represent the mark of the beast” (666) mentioned in the Book of Revelation (Revelations 13:16). Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre, authors of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID, wrote a new book on the subject from a Christian perspective. John Conner, leader of an organization called "The Resistance of Christ" also believes there is such a connection.
Even worse, RFID can be successfully “hacked” by pranksters, bored kids, or criminals with a specific target in mind. Years after the successful introduction of RFID-based pet tagging, one veterinarian's pet identification system started displaying odd behavior. First, the RFID reader seemed to be reporting incorrect pet data. A couple hours later, the system seemed to be erasing data from pets' RFID tags. Then the display on the pet identification computer froze and displayed the message: “All your pet are belong to us.” Tag input data can be used by hackers to access normally secure computer systems. This is old news in the computer industry, but it has not prevented RFID system designers from implicitly trusting the integrity of data provided by RFID tags.
From my experiences with computer “glitches” over the years, and no more than I trust the reliability of anything computerized, you can picture my eyebrows raised over that one.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Rattlesnake Fire
Last week I wrote about the Poe Cabin fire in the Slate Creek Ranger District, and ways and means of protecting your home from wildfire. Now it’s the turn of the Rattlesnake fire in the Red River Ranger District. Thanks to Laura Smith of the NPNF information office, and Erin Fryer, the incident command staff information officer, I had the opportunity to tour the Dixie area and have a look at the efforts being made to protect our “small hamlet out in the woods” from the Rattlesnake fire, if it heads into town.
While driving up the South Fork of the Clearwater, I stopped for a moment near Hanging Rock, and looked at the river. While it’s not exactly a dry streambed yet, there certainly isn’t a lot of water out there. From all appearances we’re definitely deep in a drought situation, which isn’t doing our forests any good at all. I also noticed all the dead timber standing on the hillsides, killed by the infamous Mountain Pine Beetle infestation. An infestation that’s the result of a three-way team effort between mountain pine beetles, environmental lobbyists, and the federal courts, the latter of which won't allow the thinning of these high hazard fuels to take place. It’s too bad that we can’t do something besides “let it burn” to control that particular fire hazard.
At the Red River Ranger Station I linked up with Pete Buist of the fire staff, who would be my escorting officer for the day. As a civilian I wouldn’t be allowed to go near the active parts of the fire of course, but we could go past the road closure and take a look at Dixie. (It’s been about eight years or so since I’ve been in the area.) The changes in Dixie are a real surprise, as I noticed that several “new” and quite nice looking homes have been added to the townsite. The real surprise however is in the fire mitigation efforts being conducted by the fire crews. You might remember the “Bazillion” lodgepole pines that used to grow all over the town. I understand that most of them were killed by the Pine Beetles, and those dead trees “ain’t there no more”. The fire crews have removed them, and they are soon to be turned into slow burning mulch by the industrial strength chipper that’s been ordered, rather than left standing as giant torches awaiting only a match.
The town itself is barely recognizable, being hidden underneath what looks like miles of aluminum foil! The fire crews have wrapped much of the town in an aluminized fiberglass “Fire Wrap” material that’s intended to reflect the heat of a fire away from those flammable wooden buildings. At the same time, numerous Engine crews and a pair of twenty man hand line fire crews are working all over the area, further reducing the fire hazards as best they can. Any materials that might conduct the fire to the buildings is being moved to safer locations, while grass and weeds are being cut back from the walls a safe distance. Fire wrap is being applied to surfaces particularly exposed, and is also being used to cover the windows. This latter because the radiant heat of a fire can penetrate windows and ignite the contents of the room beyond. That of course sets the whole building on fire. Historical buildings such as the old Dixie School are completely wrapped, and I was particularly impressed to see that the old wooden memorial plaque at the Dixie cemetery was similarly protected. I did have to laugh when I noticed that the standard Forest Service “little house out back” was also wrapped. So many dead trees are gone, everything’s wrapped in aluminum, and yellow shirts are seen almost everywhere, in an attempt to turn Dixie into an island of safety in the midst of a potential sea of flame.
The Dixie store itself wears a silver skirt, and the windows are covered with fire wrap. Any part of a building where a flying ember might land and start a new fire is covered with fire wrap, including decks, porches and almost anything else that’s burnable. At one residence we noticed that firefighters had moved the winter woodpile away from the wall of the house, and had neatly stacked the offending firewood a few yards away. Most of the town looks like it’s covered with spaghetti (fire hose in reality), that connects numerous portable fire pumps to a massive sprinkler system designed to wet everything down if the fire approaches.
There are five engine crews from the Stanislaus-Trinity National Forest working in Dixie, cutting weeds back from the walls, removing flammables, and installing aluminum wrap over windows and flat surfaces. One of their firefighters, who calls the high desert area of Hemet California home, said he really liked this area, although it was definitely somewhat different from where he lives. Another Stanislaus firefighter is a young lady named Melissa (I missed her last name) who is working her first season as a firefighter. She says she enjoys firefighting, and plans to stay with it. I hope she does, firefighting is a tough job, and we need all the dedicated young people we can get. Melissa seems to be an energetic “go getter”, but I don’t think I’d want her on my Engine crew. I doubt I could work hard enough to even begin to keep up with her!
Firefighters aren’t just a bunch of folks doing a tough job either; they’ve got pretty big hearts as well. While I haven’t been able to get the whole story yet, it seems that one of the Dixie residents was having a hard time getting around town on an old motorbike. Noticing the problem, a member of the Corvallis Montana VFD Engine crew took up a collection from among the firefighters working in and around Dixie, and purchased the resident a four wheel ATV. At last report he’s pleased as punch, and now getting around quite well. The “instigator” was unavailable for an interview, being on R&R someplace.
There was to be a town meeting at 3PM where the Forest Service officials would explain what was going on, what had been accomplished, what was yet to be accomplished, and to run through the plans for any potential evacuation if the fire suddenly blew up. A number of residents gathered at the store prior to the meeting, discussing the current situation, and exchanging gossip, as I imagine has been occurring at the same location for the last hundred years. There was quite a bit of talk about the fire, and the Forest Service efforts, with the overall consensus of opinion being that the firefighters were hard at work doing everything they could, and were a great bunch of people as well. In talking to numerous firefighters I heard much the same story from the other side of the fence, in that the residents of Dixie were a great bunch of people who understood the problems and were more than willing to help in every way they could.
At the meeting, Jess Secrest, the incoming Incident Commander, and his staff explained the fire situation, forecasts, and planning, along with answering questions from the public. Jess has been in the fire business for 32 years, and is experienced in doing just about every fire job in the book at one time or another. He seems quite knowledgeable, and has a lot of confidence in abilities of his team. From talking with these people, I for one would say that Dixie is in pretty darn good hands.
I took quite a few pictures while in Dixie, and anyone interested can see them at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/nezperce/gvc/photogallery/1708rattlesnakefogarty/index.htm
While driving up the South Fork of the Clearwater, I stopped for a moment near Hanging Rock, and looked at the river. While it’s not exactly a dry streambed yet, there certainly isn’t a lot of water out there. From all appearances we’re definitely deep in a drought situation, which isn’t doing our forests any good at all. I also noticed all the dead timber standing on the hillsides, killed by the infamous Mountain Pine Beetle infestation. An infestation that’s the result of a three-way team effort between mountain pine beetles, environmental lobbyists, and the federal courts, the latter of which won't allow the thinning of these high hazard fuels to take place. It’s too bad that we can’t do something besides “let it burn” to control that particular fire hazard.
At the Red River Ranger Station I linked up with Pete Buist of the fire staff, who would be my escorting officer for the day. As a civilian I wouldn’t be allowed to go near the active parts of the fire of course, but we could go past the road closure and take a look at Dixie. (It’s been about eight years or so since I’ve been in the area.) The changes in Dixie are a real surprise, as I noticed that several “new” and quite nice looking homes have been added to the townsite. The real surprise however is in the fire mitigation efforts being conducted by the fire crews. You might remember the “Bazillion” lodgepole pines that used to grow all over the town. I understand that most of them were killed by the Pine Beetles, and those dead trees “ain’t there no more”. The fire crews have removed them, and they are soon to be turned into slow burning mulch by the industrial strength chipper that’s been ordered, rather than left standing as giant torches awaiting only a match.
The town itself is barely recognizable, being hidden underneath what looks like miles of aluminum foil! The fire crews have wrapped much of the town in an aluminized fiberglass “Fire Wrap” material that’s intended to reflect the heat of a fire away from those flammable wooden buildings. At the same time, numerous Engine crews and a pair of twenty man hand line fire crews are working all over the area, further reducing the fire hazards as best they can. Any materials that might conduct the fire to the buildings is being moved to safer locations, while grass and weeds are being cut back from the walls a safe distance. Fire wrap is being applied to surfaces particularly exposed, and is also being used to cover the windows. This latter because the radiant heat of a fire can penetrate windows and ignite the contents of the room beyond. That of course sets the whole building on fire. Historical buildings such as the old Dixie School are completely wrapped, and I was particularly impressed to see that the old wooden memorial plaque at the Dixie cemetery was similarly protected. I did have to laugh when I noticed that the standard Forest Service “little house out back” was also wrapped. So many dead trees are gone, everything’s wrapped in aluminum, and yellow shirts are seen almost everywhere, in an attempt to turn Dixie into an island of safety in the midst of a potential sea of flame.
The Dixie store itself wears a silver skirt, and the windows are covered with fire wrap. Any part of a building where a flying ember might land and start a new fire is covered with fire wrap, including decks, porches and almost anything else that’s burnable. At one residence we noticed that firefighters had moved the winter woodpile away from the wall of the house, and had neatly stacked the offending firewood a few yards away. Most of the town looks like it’s covered with spaghetti (fire hose in reality), that connects numerous portable fire pumps to a massive sprinkler system designed to wet everything down if the fire approaches.
There are five engine crews from the Stanislaus-Trinity National Forest working in Dixie, cutting weeds back from the walls, removing flammables, and installing aluminum wrap over windows and flat surfaces. One of their firefighters, who calls the high desert area of Hemet California home, said he really liked this area, although it was definitely somewhat different from where he lives. Another Stanislaus firefighter is a young lady named Melissa (I missed her last name) who is working her first season as a firefighter. She says she enjoys firefighting, and plans to stay with it. I hope she does, firefighting is a tough job, and we need all the dedicated young people we can get. Melissa seems to be an energetic “go getter”, but I don’t think I’d want her on my Engine crew. I doubt I could work hard enough to even begin to keep up with her!
Firefighters aren’t just a bunch of folks doing a tough job either; they’ve got pretty big hearts as well. While I haven’t been able to get the whole story yet, it seems that one of the Dixie residents was having a hard time getting around town on an old motorbike. Noticing the problem, a member of the Corvallis Montana VFD Engine crew took up a collection from among the firefighters working in and around Dixie, and purchased the resident a four wheel ATV. At last report he’s pleased as punch, and now getting around quite well. The “instigator” was unavailable for an interview, being on R&R someplace.
There was to be a town meeting at 3PM where the Forest Service officials would explain what was going on, what had been accomplished, what was yet to be accomplished, and to run through the plans for any potential evacuation if the fire suddenly blew up. A number of residents gathered at the store prior to the meeting, discussing the current situation, and exchanging gossip, as I imagine has been occurring at the same location for the last hundred years. There was quite a bit of talk about the fire, and the Forest Service efforts, with the overall consensus of opinion being that the firefighters were hard at work doing everything they could, and were a great bunch of people as well. In talking to numerous firefighters I heard much the same story from the other side of the fence, in that the residents of Dixie were a great bunch of people who understood the problems and were more than willing to help in every way they could.
At the meeting, Jess Secrest, the incoming Incident Commander, and his staff explained the fire situation, forecasts, and planning, along with answering questions from the public. Jess has been in the fire business for 32 years, and is experienced in doing just about every fire job in the book at one time or another. He seems quite knowledgeable, and has a lot of confidence in abilities of his team. From talking with these people, I for one would say that Dixie is in pretty darn good hands.
I took quite a few pictures while in Dixie, and anyone interested can see them at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/nezperce/gvc/photogallery/1708rattlesnakefogarty/index.htm
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Poe Cabin Fire
Our fire season started early this year, and so far I’ve seen no indication that it’s going to be anything but a long, hot, smoky, and probably miserable, summer. At the time of this writing we have twenty major fire incidents working in the Northern Rockies region of North Idaho, Montana, part of Wyoming, and North Dakota. We’re not alone either, considering that the entire great basin area (part of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and south Idaho) seems to be burning, with twenty major fire incidents working, along with the Oregon and Washington region having six major incidents working, and several more recently contained. As I understand the statistics, so far this year we’ve had over 56,000 fires large and small across the nation, at a loss of more than 4.5 million acres of federal, state, and private lands. The nationwide extended weather outlook doesn’t promise any relief either.
Several days ago I toured the northern area of the Poe Cabin fire (mostly the Twin Rivers Ranch area) with Brian Scott of the incident command staff. Brian hails from South Dakota where (when he’s not out on major fires) he works as a natural resources technician for the state’s Department of Agriculture. He briefly described the problems facing the IMT and the firefighters, which included rugged terrain, fast burning fuels, hot and dry weather of course, and a shortage of fire fighting resources. I’ve fought a few fires in nasty terrain before, but the area these crews are working in would have to be very near the top of my list of nastiness! It looks like these guys are doing a whale of a job, with particular kudos to both the Whitebird and Salmon River Rural Fire Departments, who held the line alone for quite some time.
We met up with Mike Dannenberg of the BLM (in Montana), who’s in charge of the Structural Protection Unit on the northern perimeter of the fire. Mike also noted the particular problems of wildland firefighting in this area, and stressed the value of having a defensible space around each home. During our tour he showed us a prime example of a highly defensible home, that he thought should be a “Poster Child” for the Fire Safe program. For anyone who’s not aware of it, “Fire Safe” is an effort to teach homeowners living in or near wild lands how to protect their homes from the ravages of wildfire. The home he showed us has a number of safety features built-in to the landscaping, in that brush and tall grass were not allowed near the place, and a fire free decorative gravel strip had been placed all around the house and yard. Mentioning the terrain features, Mike pointed out that the house was very near the head of a brushy ravine that would funnel a fire right to the house. However, in this case the house is set back slightly from the ravine, and any intervening brush had been removed. I didn’t notice any shade trees near the house, but Mike also said that while our local conifers are comparatively easy to ignite, hardwood trees are apparently much more difficult to set afire. If you have a choice, hardwoods are a safer bet. He commented that if he were in Reno, and were a betting man, he’s bet that this particular home would survive a burnover. In visiting another home close by, Mike pointed out several problem areas, in that tall grass, brush, and trees were in very close proximity to the house, providing a fuel chain directly to the house. Pity, it’s a nice looking home.
First and foremost, we all recognize that fire is a natural part of our environment. Today, as the population continues to move away from the suburbs and into a more rural setting, homes are being built and maintained without regard to wildfire hazards. With our present warmer summers and drought conditions, and with more people using our wildlands for recreational purposes, there is also a greater chance of fire starts. Today’s wildfires often burn very intensely and can be quite difficult to control. Fire in the “Urban Interface” is a growing problem nationwide. (“Urban Interface” being defined as the place where towns meet the woods.) A lot of people assume that when a wildfire starts, it will be quickly controlled and extinguished. This is accurate most of the time, for most wildfires. But occasionally wildfires burn so intensely that there is little firefighters can do, particularly so if the home isn’t defensible. In most areas, a safety zone should be cleared away from your home for a distance of not less than 30 feet. As the slope of your home site increases, additional clearance as far out as 100 feet or more may be necessary. Flammable vegetation too close to your home will make it almost impossible for firefighters to save much of anything in the event of a fire. When people are living in high hazard fire environments, the human built environment becomes an important factor in the loss of life and property. Untreated wood shake and shingle roofs, narrow and one-way roads, limited access, lack of fire-wise landscaping, inadequate water supplies, are all examples of the increased risk to people living with the threat of wildfire.
Quoting from a Fire Safe pamphlet; “Clear away flammable vegetation and combustible growth a minimum of 30 feet away from homes. If a wooden deck is part of the back of the home, this 30-foot distance starts from the edge of the deck outward. Brush and weeds must be cut to the ground, raked up, and removed from the property. Single specimens of trees and shrubbery used as ground cover, provided that they don’t form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure, can be kept in this 30-foot space. Trim trees horizontally to at least 10 feet away from the home and decks. If a homeowner wishes to keep a tree within this 10-foot distance they must trim any nearby trees a minimum of 10 feet away from this tree within this first 30-foot space. Large trees must be limbed up to a minimum of six feet above the ground and smaller trees limbed up proportionately. Homes that have any type of slope must have an additional defensible space created. This distance must be an additional minimum of 70-foot space in addition to the first 30 feet for a total of 100 feet. In this additional 70-foot space, the vegetation should be cut so that it is not more than 18” above the ground. The cut vegetation can be left in place as long as it is mulched down. Trees within this 70-foot space should also be limbed up a minimum of 6 feet above the ground for large trees and proportionately for smaller trees. Flammable vegetation and combustible growth should be cut and removed from below the canopies of the trees in this 70-foot space.”
To this I’ll add that we all have an assortment of flammable materials around the place. Gasoline for the lawnmower, paints and thinners, propane tanks, whatever. These materials present not only more fuel for a fire, they can also be quite hazardous to the firefighter that’s trying to save your home. Store them safely, well away from the house. Due to a disastrous fire incident I was involved with years ago, propane tanks in a fire situation are one of my major concerns. If you use propane, make sure than there are no fuels anywhere near the tank. Keep the brush as far away as you can, keep the grass under the tank cut, and don’t hide the tank behind a wall of firewood!
It’s your home, “Learn not to burn.”
Several days ago I toured the northern area of the Poe Cabin fire (mostly the Twin Rivers Ranch area) with Brian Scott of the incident command staff. Brian hails from South Dakota where (when he’s not out on major fires) he works as a natural resources technician for the state’s Department of Agriculture. He briefly described the problems facing the IMT and the firefighters, which included rugged terrain, fast burning fuels, hot and dry weather of course, and a shortage of fire fighting resources. I’ve fought a few fires in nasty terrain before, but the area these crews are working in would have to be very near the top of my list of nastiness! It looks like these guys are doing a whale of a job, with particular kudos to both the Whitebird and Salmon River Rural Fire Departments, who held the line alone for quite some time.
We met up with Mike Dannenberg of the BLM (in Montana), who’s in charge of the Structural Protection Unit on the northern perimeter of the fire. Mike also noted the particular problems of wildland firefighting in this area, and stressed the value of having a defensible space around each home. During our tour he showed us a prime example of a highly defensible home, that he thought should be a “Poster Child” for the Fire Safe program. For anyone who’s not aware of it, “Fire Safe” is an effort to teach homeowners living in or near wild lands how to protect their homes from the ravages of wildfire. The home he showed us has a number of safety features built-in to the landscaping, in that brush and tall grass were not allowed near the place, and a fire free decorative gravel strip had been placed all around the house and yard. Mentioning the terrain features, Mike pointed out that the house was very near the head of a brushy ravine that would funnel a fire right to the house. However, in this case the house is set back slightly from the ravine, and any intervening brush had been removed. I didn’t notice any shade trees near the house, but Mike also said that while our local conifers are comparatively easy to ignite, hardwood trees are apparently much more difficult to set afire. If you have a choice, hardwoods are a safer bet. He commented that if he were in Reno, and were a betting man, he’s bet that this particular home would survive a burnover. In visiting another home close by, Mike pointed out several problem areas, in that tall grass, brush, and trees were in very close proximity to the house, providing a fuel chain directly to the house. Pity, it’s a nice looking home.
First and foremost, we all recognize that fire is a natural part of our environment. Today, as the population continues to move away from the suburbs and into a more rural setting, homes are being built and maintained without regard to wildfire hazards. With our present warmer summers and drought conditions, and with more people using our wildlands for recreational purposes, there is also a greater chance of fire starts. Today’s wildfires often burn very intensely and can be quite difficult to control. Fire in the “Urban Interface” is a growing problem nationwide. (“Urban Interface” being defined as the place where towns meet the woods.) A lot of people assume that when a wildfire starts, it will be quickly controlled and extinguished. This is accurate most of the time, for most wildfires. But occasionally wildfires burn so intensely that there is little firefighters can do, particularly so if the home isn’t defensible. In most areas, a safety zone should be cleared away from your home for a distance of not less than 30 feet. As the slope of your home site increases, additional clearance as far out as 100 feet or more may be necessary. Flammable vegetation too close to your home will make it almost impossible for firefighters to save much of anything in the event of a fire. When people are living in high hazard fire environments, the human built environment becomes an important factor in the loss of life and property. Untreated wood shake and shingle roofs, narrow and one-way roads, limited access, lack of fire-wise landscaping, inadequate water supplies, are all examples of the increased risk to people living with the threat of wildfire.
Quoting from a Fire Safe pamphlet; “Clear away flammable vegetation and combustible growth a minimum of 30 feet away from homes. If a wooden deck is part of the back of the home, this 30-foot distance starts from the edge of the deck outward. Brush and weeds must be cut to the ground, raked up, and removed from the property. Single specimens of trees and shrubbery used as ground cover, provided that they don’t form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure, can be kept in this 30-foot space. Trim trees horizontally to at least 10 feet away from the home and decks. If a homeowner wishes to keep a tree within this 10-foot distance they must trim any nearby trees a minimum of 10 feet away from this tree within this first 30-foot space. Large trees must be limbed up to a minimum of six feet above the ground and smaller trees limbed up proportionately. Homes that have any type of slope must have an additional defensible space created. This distance must be an additional minimum of 70-foot space in addition to the first 30 feet for a total of 100 feet. In this additional 70-foot space, the vegetation should be cut so that it is not more than 18” above the ground. The cut vegetation can be left in place as long as it is mulched down. Trees within this 70-foot space should also be limbed up a minimum of 6 feet above the ground for large trees and proportionately for smaller trees. Flammable vegetation and combustible growth should be cut and removed from below the canopies of the trees in this 70-foot space.”
To this I’ll add that we all have an assortment of flammable materials around the place. Gasoline for the lawnmower, paints and thinners, propane tanks, whatever. These materials present not only more fuel for a fire, they can also be quite hazardous to the firefighter that’s trying to save your home. Store them safely, well away from the house. Due to a disastrous fire incident I was involved with years ago, propane tanks in a fire situation are one of my major concerns. If you use propane, make sure than there are no fuels anywhere near the tank. Keep the brush as far away as you can, keep the grass under the tank cut, and don’t hide the tank behind a wall of firewood!
It’s your home, “Learn not to burn.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)