wildfires and politics
POSTED BY: mal4prez
UPDATED: Sunday, August 9, 2026 14:08
VIEWED: 27581
PAGE 6 of 15
"... and its pretty clear that Gov't is fairly ineffectual at doing much of anything about 'em 'cause they still get out of control every year."
It's kinda' like public schools, isn't it? Just keep cutting the funding, and then blame them for not doing the job.
If government were to really control fires, it would need crews, equipment and money. And a plan. I read a study, which I haven't been able to find again, where the government funded a study on fire suppression that set up four VERY large areas as quadrants in a square - perhaps 5x5miles each - and did four different things. 1) nothing 2) thin the trees 3) controlled burning 4) thinning AND burning. A year or two later a very large forest fire raged through the area. So the researchers went back to see what worked in their unanticipated test. The 'do nothing' area was burned just as badly as the surrounding forest. The 'thin', and the 'burn' areas took longer to succumb, and didn’t burn quite as badly (the dirt wasn't glassified), but were not very successful either. The 'thin AND burn' area OTOH came away nearly unscathed. The aerial photo was stunning in its simplicity.
So, what do YOU think stands in the way of effective fire suppression?
"I'm saying I think they should be funded and run by civillian organizations."
Local? Small? Uncoordinated with other organizations from other areas? I'm hoping you see the limitations of that.
"I think WE ALL depend on gov't too much."
So that your air pollution doesn't hurt my lungs? So that your water pollution doesn't hurt my water supply? So that your E. coli contaminated beef doesn't end up in my supermarket? What do you mean by that?
"When you seek Gov't protection, you get what you get..."
When you have the vote and don't vote on issues, or don't vote at all, you get what you deserve.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can you even conceive of how many civilian organizations it would require, and at what cost, for each state to "take care of" its own? Where would Colorado be today if they only had their own "civilian organization" of firefighteres out there fighting the current fires?
It's sad how some peple seem to be incapable of conceiving of a middle ground. How they can't imagine citizens pitching in to help when their own resources requires help from the government. It has to be all or nothing for people like you, and that's sad because the result, if you got your way, would be devastating. I'm sorry for you.
Absolutes when it comes to political stances are no answer to anything, just partisan blathering.
It doesn't have to be an either/either scenario. Living in one of the worst fire prone areas in the world, I know this first hand. People do prepare themselves and their homes, but as in the case of the 2009 Black Saturday fires, it wasn't enough. Lots of well prepared people died.
I live in a country that has lots of government, but people still pitch in and work damned hard for their community for nothing. We have highly trained volunteer firefighters known as the CFA and the State Emergency Service, also volunteer. They both do highly dangerous work when taking care of the rest of us nuff nuffs, but they need equipment, they need training, they need co-ordinating. And when large scale disasters happen, like back in 2009 when basically the whole state was on fire, many, many services, volunteer and professional were working around the clock to help save lives and property, central co-ordination was needed to make it all work. Lots of mistakes were made, and lots of learning had to happen as a result.
I guess what I am trying to say is that all of this can use imput and financial assistance from a central authority.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I did not say you were. I purposely said something like: "you and conservatives", putting you in a list with them, but as a separate item. That's because I do not know where you stand but in this matter you are stating exactly the rightie line.
Originally posted by Wishimay:
I don't think you get anything I said really, including that I am not conservative. Neither am I liberal. I wouldn't claim either side. In fact, I think people choosing sides just bogs EVERYTHING down...
Quote:Um, I've been over this before. You do understand, I hope, that no one is talking about one building here. Right? We are talking about a wildfire that looked damned near stoppable, like it is was heading for Kansas, but now thanks to the firefighters (and improved conditions) it has retreated.
I'm saying I don't want anybody risking their life over a damn building, especially mine, as you can have a better one ordered and built in the same month, now.
Quote:This is incredibly immature, simplistic, and has nothing to do with reality. Why bother feeding your kid today, since they're just going to hungry again tomorrow, right? *facepalm*
I am also saying that I see these wildfires every year, and its pretty clear that Gov't is fairly ineffectual at doing much of anything about 'em 'cause they still get out of control every year.
As I asked you before, would you please look at the news before you say something like this? The city of CO Springs would be ashes right now if not for the firefighters. They have been very fucking effective.
About saving people first: again, you seem to think that this is your idea that hasn't ever occurred to anyone else. Which proves that you aren't paying attention. If you listened to the firefighters, you'd know that this is exactly what they're doing, what they ALWAYS do. You'll also note that there have been no injuries in the Waldo County Fire so far. Evacuations were handled smoothly - hey, by the govt - and more than 30000 were evacuated from their homes without incident. So yes, they saved the people first. But then they did NOT just forget about the "junk", which is nice because now the city is, for the most part, intact. And still no one is hurt.
If they'd done what you suggest and let the fire freely go on its way, which meant right into the heart of the city, it's very likely that someone would have been hurt.
Quote:Back to what Anthony said (and I'm getting a very strong feeling that you aren't reading anyone's posts, because this has been stated multiple time.) Fire departments ARE funded and run by civilian organizations. That's what govt is.
And Firefighters do more than just fight fires. I'm not saying we should get rid of Firefighters. I'm saying I think they should be funded and run by civillian organizations.
Quote:
I think WE ALL depend on gov't too much. Some people like that...I don't. I doubt my opinion will change much.
I'll avoid saying "I Told You So" when they start by regulating customs like circumcision, and end up doing worse, like medical experiments on soldiers, or drafting people to fight wars they don't believe in, or accidentally blowing up whole buildings full with drones.... wait... I guess those were necessary evils for civilization, right?
You've got a funny filter. You're pouncing all over the bad things govt does, yet won't admit to a single good thing. Then you relate the bad things to other groups that have nothing to do with it. Sounds an awful lot like you've made your conclusion already, or had it impressed on you: "GOVERNMENT=BAD" and you only admit observations that back this up. Sure, there are bad things in govt, and they should be stopped. Do you cut off you child's hand because he/she mouthed off to you? Of course not. Nor do you throw out schools and fire depts because some far-off branch of govt is misbehaving. You go a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'll avoid saying "I Told You So" when they start by regulating customs like circumcision, and end up doing worse, like medical experiments on soldiers, or drafting people to fight wars they don't believe in, or accidentally blowing up whole buildings full with drones.... wait... I guess those were necessary evils for civilization, right?
When you seek Gov't protection, you get what you get...
Hello,
I think any collective takes power away from the individual. On the other hand, there are problems that only a collective seems well-equipped to handle.
What I want to aim for is a better collective. It doesn't particularly matter whether you want to call that collective 'the federal government' or 'the fifty-thousand free people who assembled into this volunteer militia and who are answerable to the three-hundred million society for the defense of the common people.'
I would agree that current wildfire fighting methods are poor, but I do not think abandoning entire cities to burn in a fire is a better option. A better solution would probably be to perform forest management and urban containment in anticipation of wildfire season before any fire presents itself. However, no collective I am aware of, private or public, has been given the resources or authority to do such a thing effectively.
I would very much like to hear suggestions about how to build better collectives. And I really don't care what these collectives are called, because I don't see much difference between a state government and a state public coalition of free persons assembled voluntarily for the good of the group. Those are just names.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
I would very much like to hear suggestions about how to build better collectives. And I really don't care what these collectives are called, because I don't see much difference between a state government and a state public coalition of free persons assembled voluntarily for the good of the group. Those are just names.
Not to thread jack but this is a very interesting thing to contemplate. I think it's the structure of "group problem solving" that we don't have right, not necessarily the "bad" people. Or, the structure has to be such that the variety of people and their intentions involved can't defeat the groups ability to solve problems. Too often we use top down (one person in charge), instead of sideways (equal input from a number of people). In a very broad sense I wish the president was more of an Organizer (not a reference to Comm.Org. in Chicago) - someone who's job it was to see that goals that have been agreed on are met.
Anyway... another thread.
Best to your folks M4P - losing my home would be one of the worst things I can imagine, just the threat of it has to be gut wrenching.
Fwiw - I think Wish is just responding out of great frustration - seeing these tragic cycles repeat themselves, whatever the source, can make it seem like there's no real solution, like we're almost powerless to stop them so why not adopt a "if I don't LET it hurt me it can't." It's another way to deal with it.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
I would very much like to hear suggestions about how to build better collectives. And I really don't care what these collectives are called, because I don't see much difference between a state government and a state public coalition of free persons assembled voluntarily for the good of the group. Those are just names.
Not to thread jack but this is a very interesting thing to contemplate. I think it's the structure of "group problem solving" that we don't have right, not necessarily the "bad" people. Or, the structure has to be such that the variety of people and their intentions involved can't defeat the groups ability to solve problems. Too often we use top down (one person in charge), instead of sideways (equal input from a number of people). In a very broad sense I wish the president was more of an Organizer (not a reference to Comm.Org. in Chicago) - someone who's job it was to see that goals that have been agreed on are met.
Anyway... another thread.
I don't think this is a thread jack, I think it's a natural place for the conversation to go.
There's a trade-off here. Top-down gets things down more quickly, but group work can incorporate more ideas and be more creative. There are times for each. Personally, I prefer something more top-down when I'm working with a group, because I generally want to get shit done and be on my way. You know, unless the "top" person is a moron.
But I think you're right that it isn't that people are "bad", it's just hard to get anything done as a group. I only have small experience with trying to organize a group of widely varying people, to form an organization that will continue to serve its purpose for the indefinite future. (A college club, actually.) It was shockingly hard. So many complications to handle, different situations to predict and deal with. It made me see how any govt gets to be such a mess.
It's sadly inevitable that things get too messy. I wish there was a rule about getting rid of as many rules as possible. Every 10 or 20 years, we need to throw everything out unless there's a very compelling reason to keep it. Of course, the rules that would spring up around such a rule-clearing-out would be their own tangle.
Oh - the point I mean to make is that all these anti-govt people would learn a lot by trying to form groups that bring disparate people together. See how hard it is to get things done. It would be lovely to 1) find better ways to work together 2) be a little more forgiving when a collaborative (ie govt) process takes time and effort and the results are imperfect.
Quote:Thankfully, the danger is much lower now. Tuesday really was scary, that fire was moving like nothing in the world could stop it. As of today, it looks almost shut down. (Hoping for no afternoon winds!) Still, a few hundred homes were lost, and the Flying W ranch, which is very sad. Another thing that may seem silly: the people of the Springs, especially my dad, really love that line of mountains. He was talking about it yesterday, and was genuinely grieved about the fire scar, the lack of trees. To him, it'll be like a scar on his own body. It'll be there for the rest of his life.
Best to your folks M4P - losing my home would be one of the worst things I can imagine, just the threat of it has to be gut wrenching.
Quote:I just wish she'd look closer, and see that events are not repeating themselves exactly. Blinding oneself, or numbing oneself, is precisely the wrong thing to do. It guar
Fwiw - I think Wish is just responding out of great frustration - seeing these tragic cycles repeat themselves, whatever the source, can make it seem like there's no real solution, like we're almost powerless to stop them so why not adopt a "if I don't LET it hurt me it can't." It's another way to deal with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Katrina, Bush let the black folks drown.
Colorado, Romney said let the white folks burn, since we don't need any more firefighters.
Fixed that for ya!
I note for the record that Obama cut the funding for the planes and helicopters that drop water.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thing is, if you think about it, Romney's call for fewer firefighters, cops and teachers has a purpose; he wants such things handled by FOR-PROFIT oranizations; as only one example, charter schools. Given his way, everything would be for profit, which is pretty much what the right wants, too. The problem is that for-profit corporations don't necessarily do any better job than government does, and their bottom line is profit. That potentially means short-cutting on things to save money which, as we've seen over and over, ends up being worse than what the government tries to do. That's pretty much what it comes down to. I would assume in the case of fires, that would mean whatever is saved is pro-rated and paid for by the homeowner, or taxed and the for-profit company is paid that way...in which case a fire would raise the cost. That's kind of what insurance does, and we know how effective and willing to abide by their "contract" most insurance companies are.
This is, of course, in part what the government does already, but we can't know how MUCH more it would cost to have all fire departments be for profit. Given the government (city, county, state, fed) doesn't make a profit on providing firefighters, cops, teachers currently, I'm guessing it would cost a lot more to have them all be private organizations whose bottom line is profit.
I'd like to know how any citizen-created organization would work and who would pay for it, and how it would coordinate when it comes to huge disasters such as this. I guess I just see it that, as Anthony so beautifully put it (he IS a peach, isn't he?), as a country we ARE one group and not only interdependent, but abiding by a covenant that one state helps out another, and the fed kicks in its share.
Mal4 is absolutely right in that if there was no federal assistance, things in situations such as this would be FAR worse. The government isn't perfect, by far, but in my opinion it's better than leaving it up to individuals and/or states/cities/counties whose priorities, preparations, and effectiveness would vary from place to place more than they already do now.
Like I said, Jim's son Jeff was trained in firefighting--these are the guys who are sent around to big fires like CO's on a national level. The training is grueling in its demand for physical fitness, and very, very rigorous in its demand for everyone to know how to deal with different problems, how to coordinate, etc. I just don't see any group could be as effective, or how they could handle something without a lot of loss of life among THEMSELVES< not to mention the public.
As to Obama having cut funding for some of this, the pertinent question is what made him do so? Given the Republicans demands for cut, cut, cut, was it a choice between that and something else? So many cuts have been forced by the Republicans' obstinate determination to ONLY cut, that I'm pretty sure that's how the cuts came about. I don't see Obama deciding out of the blue to cut firefighting funding. Just sayin'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I note for the record that Obama cut the funding for the planes and helicopters that drop water.
I note for the record that Obama signed an order to add seven heavy air tankers to the Forest Service Fleet, which has been a substantial help because there are areas of these mountains that ground support just can't get to.
Hey look, I have citations: http://www.startribune.com/nation/158424715.html
http://www.collegian.com/2012/06/27/udall-sponsored-bill-signed-by-oba
ma-allowing-colorado-forest-service-access-to-new-air-tankers/(This article also mentions a move to mitigate the effect pine beetles that have turned miles of forest to tinder. Hopefully this means cutting some of that dead wood out, if any of it is still around after all this.)
These seven tankers were provided by the government after a contract with a private company was cancelled last year. (In other words, you're full of shit to say funding was cut. Government funds were used to build government planes.) The newer tankers are actually quite a bit better; older, private air tankers were prone to breaking down, as some of them have this year. I think a few of them crashed last year, which I'd guess was part of the problem with keeping the contract. One crashed this month in Utah, I know. I think its job is now being filled by a Canadian government tanker.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Thing is, if you think about it, Romney's call for fewer firefighters, cops and teachers has a purpose; he wants such things handled by FOR-PROFIT oranizations; as only one example, charter schools. Given his way, everything would be for profit, which is pretty much what the right wants, too. The problem is that for-profit corporations don't necessarily do any better job than government does, and their bottom line is profit. That potentially means short-cutting on things to save money which, as we've seen over and over, ends up being worse than what the government tries to do. That's pretty much what it comes down to. I would assume in the case of fires, that would mean whatever is saved is pro-rated and paid for by the homeowner, or taxed and the for-profit company is paid that way...in which case a fire would raise the cost. That's kind of what insurance does, and we know how effective and willing to abide by their "contract" most insurance companies are.
Maybe there's a way to make a hybrid?
For-Profit under the control of Gov? Both have their pluses and minuses (just like the one vs many in leadership approaches). Looking at the US Post Office it's easy to imagine that if some of today's smartest and hungriest entrepreneurs were put in charge how much better and more profitable it could be run. With so much more retail now being done online with the associated increase in shipping... there should be a windfall.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME