6 Nov 2008, 10:33am
Politics and politicians Saving Forests
by admin

Nothing Better To Do

What does the election of B. Hussein Obama mean to our national forests?

Absolutely nothing. B. Hussein has no forest policy, has zero experience in natural resources, knows nothing about forests, and has never even seen a forest. The topic did not come up in the campaign.

The people who voted for B. Hussein did so because of his skin color, not because of his forest policy. For the first time in American history, a president was selected on the basis of his race and race alone. B. Hussein is our “token” president.

Natural resource issues were not a factor because John McCain had no discernible natural resource policy either. The word “forests” was not mentioned one time in his campaign. The only glimmer of a resource issue was global warming, and both candidates shared the far out viewpoint that the US should unilaterally shut down two-thirds of our economy in the name of a total hoax.

Hold on to something steady, sports fans. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING. The globe is cooling and has been cooling for about 9,000 years. Yes, there are minor peaks and valleys. Most recently (for the last 10 years) global temps have fallen to their lowest point in 35 years, effectively wiping out any (minor) temperature increase seen over the 20th Century. The outlook is cold and getting colder.

B. Hussein wants to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant, when in fact it is the KEY NUTRIENT OF LIFE. Last time anyone looked we were carbon-based lifeforms here on Planet Earth. Your bodily carbon, which is to say all of your cells and your basic corporeal existence, derives from carbon dioxide, without which you would not be.

B. Hussein wants to declare war on life, in other words. His opponent, Republican-In-Name-Only John McCain shared the exact same view, so voters had no choice whatsoever, which is why they selected on the basis of skin color, since there were no other substantive differences between the candidates.

Even in Oregon the massive forest crisis we face was not an issue in any campaign, local or statewide. The populace is inured to seeing their watersheds destroyed in catastrophic holocausts. We have come to expect that. No one questions whether forests policies should be any different from No Touch, Let It Burn, Watch It Rot. Our one RINO senator wouldn’t touch forest issues with a ten-foot peavy and neither did the radical Leftist who replaced him.

Oregon’s RINO party has abandoned the state just as they have abandoned our forests. The closest thing to a Republican in Oregon is in Alaska. And Oregon’s Far Left Democommie party is pro-forest holocaust. They “rendezvous” in the ashes whenever the big burns happen. When old-growth forests were incinerated last summer in Oregon in various megafires, the Dems celebrated. Their dream is to declare every square inch of Oregon a free fire zone and burn the whole state to smithereens.

But there is nothing new in all of that. It is the same old, same old. Our state and national forest policy has been Burn Baby Burn for 20 years, and nothing has changed in that regard. In an election touted as the Big Change, when it comes to forest policy, it wasn’t. There has been no change at all and none is expected.

Which is why we must buckle down and teach the new bozos what we tried (and failed) to teach the old bozos, that forest stewardship is preferable to forest holocaust and destruction. It seems like a simple, logical, pragmatic thing, and it is, but we are dealing with some serious bozos once again.

So get out the tow ropes and prepare to drag a new bunch of clueless imbeciles up the learning curve, kicking and screaming all the way (on the part of the imbeciles).

Can it be done? Can you teach the clueless? Can we save our forests from destruction?

Maybe, maybe not. But we’re going to try. Got nothing better to do.

6 Nov 2008, 9:02pm
by Bob Z.


I think it is simplistic and wrong to say this was an election based on race. Obama was clearly the better speaker, the better fundraiser, the more organized, the more Net savvy, and the least Bushed.

By comparison, McCain came across as someone’s cranky old uncle with a possible disease he was hiding from the family, in apparent need of help with the rent.

This was not a vote for race, and maybe not even a vote for a charismatic and eloquent speaker, so much as it was a vote for change and a vote against Bush. That people are voting for socialism over capitalism in the process is a fact likely lost on (or irrelevant to) most voters.

I would have voted for Palin, because of her stand on energy issues, but I couldn’t bring myself to vote for McCain because of his stand on Global Warming and the Wall Street bailout. So I didn’t vote.

This is an opportunity to start from scratch and educate a new administration and new Congress on the importance of natural resources and forests to America. Bush apparently couldn’t be taught and couldn’t be trusted.

Fresh start. New tactics. Eyes on the prize.

12 Nov 2008, 7:47am
by backcut

Yes we can….

Turn our forests into brushfields.

Since the election, I have demanded (on other websites) that the eco’s come up with a plan… any plan. They just don’t want to talk about it. They have grandiose plans for reducing greenhouse gasses, eliminating Hummers and other forms of “astroturf” but, when it comes to forests, they are in strict denial of this ongoing disaster and are quite content to doom our forests to martyrdom if that will convince the public of “climate change”.

It’s time to call this disaster “Obama’s Katrina”.

12 Nov 2008, 12:41pm
by ned

You are both right. Obama’s main qualification was his race and unique ability to excite the media. McCain ran a poor campaign. Until he selected Palin I was not optimistic he would have a better environmental policy. Obama will not change environmental policy and will probably make it worse. We are in for some frustrating years, probably even worse than the last sixteen years. A complicating factor is that the timber industry is disappearing. It was first impacted when the Forest Service stopped the sale of timber and now with the bad economy they can’t sell their product. Even if the Forest Service started selling timber there will not be much industry left to buy it.

Unfortunately, this old forester is not optimistic.



web site

leave a comment

  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta