[RooneyX]

Arnie burned California on purpose when he dropped his cigar so he could go to Washington and get funds and be the savior of California!

[eklipse]

[thunderous_funker]

Except that the neighborhood that are burning are the most ardent Arnie supporters and the source of the entire Recall effort.

They are also the ones that oppose property tax reforms and public sector spending, but insist that fire crews protect their homes like Marines despite building in the known Fire Zone that burns on a regular and natural fire cycle.

I'm not sure its really related, but I find it curiously interesting.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by eklipse:

That's a keeper!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:

I'm going to have to agree with this screenshot...I put this in the same category, on the other side, of when zimphire posted a cartoon saying Hilary was in cahoots with Saddam.

Not really very funny or even having a point.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Except that the neighborhood that are burning are the most ardent Arnie supporters and the source of the entire Recall effort.

Where on earth (or whatever planet) did you dream that up?

Sometimes you really go off the deep end with your selective recasting of things. Anyway, I do owe you thanks for providing in a single sentence what has to a textbook perfect example of what I mean when I talk about liberals 'recasting' people/places/entire regions of a state/etc. to suit a narrow poltical view.

They are also the ones that oppose property tax reforms and public sector spending, but insist that fire crews protect their homes like Marines despite building in the known Fire Zone that burns on a regular and natural fire cycle.

I'm not sure its really related, but I find it curiously interesting.

An Arnold/recall election/California wildfire conspiracy theory??!

Are you actually serious, or was this a joke?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

Where on earth (or whatever planet) did you dream that up?

Sometimes you really go off the deep end with your selective recasting of things. Anyway, I do owe you thanks for providing in a single sentence what has to a textbook perfect example of what I mean when I talk about liberals 'recasting' people/places/entire regions of a state/etc. to suit a narrow poltical view.



An Arnold/recall election/California wildfire conspiracy theory??!

Are you actually serious, or was this a joke?

If you had (or do live) in Los Angeles or other sections of California, you'd know that the properties usually at higher risk to wildfires and mudslides are those owned by the very wealthy who tend to buy/build in the geographical areas closest to forests/overlooks, etc. Its the same problem with Beachfront property in that very rich people buy on unstable property and then expect state government agencies to foot the bill to save them from natural disasters that those particular areas are prone to.

Now, even though that is generally true, I'm not sure that t_f is correct that the wealthy are the people most likely to have voted for Arnie. I don't know the demographics of that one.

but certainly, the wealthier residents are going to have their properties protected at great expense to the taxpayer.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Now, even though that is generally true, I'm not sure that t_f is correct that the wealthy are the people most likely to have voted for Arnie. I don't know the demographics of that one.

but certainly, the wealthier residents are going to have their properties protected at great expense to the taxpayer.

Assuming- (EXPECIALLY in Los Angeles and much of Southern California), that because someone is wealthy or owns a hillside or beachfront house that they are an 'Arnold supporter' is positively BRAINDEAD on the part of anyone who makes such a recast.

It demonstrates a nearly unbelievable lack of knowledge in the make up of Californians, and especially the make up of LA's 'upper crust' which actually (as most people who've ever even HALFWAY paid any attention) know would be far more likely to be classified as liberal in their political leanings if anything.

No, not all of them- but by no means can one recast them all as 'Arnold supporters' or conservatives without just having their brain take a complete dump.

And by the way, that's not even getting into the fact that many of the areas threatened weren't by any stretch of the imagination 'Joe Millionare' neighborhoods or communities, but ordinary middle class neighborhoods.

I guess it wouldn’t be quite as off the mark assumption to make from someone who doesn’t LIVE here. I guess some folks don’t get out much. A while ago it was Palm Springs and Beverly Hills that were supposedly stuffed full of ‘Duroville’ creating evil, awful conservatives. Makes me wonder what's next? Malibu will be selectively recast as overly conservative, and therefore deserving of having thier houses mudslide off the hills into the drink? (Okay, okay, I confess: I have stated that such would be fitting for the likes of Babs Streisand!)


I guess the class-envy mindset of some folks has drilled 'rich=conservative/Republican' so deeply into some people's brains, they can't give the idea up even in the face of absolute ludicrousness.

What in the world is with this attempt anyway, to try and vilify people for NOT wanting their houses to burn down? And conspiracy theories over it?

As long as we’re on the tax issue (which I don’t see having a THING to do with anything other than someone seems to be envious of the homes of other’s) why the hell shouldn’t people who pay the lion’s share of taxes expect firemen to battle fires that threaten their homes? Let’s see- people pay taxes to fund such services- but shouldn’t expect any return when it’s needed, based on someone’s silly recasting of them all as ‘Arnold supporters’ behind the recall election?

[RooneyX]

I live in Beverly Hills and never heard a good word about Arnold the politician. My barber (who grew up in the same neighborhood as I back in London and cut the hair of greats like Gene Kelly, Sean Connery, etc) calls Arnold 'The Grinning Gorilla.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I guess it wouldn’t be quite as off the mark assumption to make from someone who doesn’t LIVE here. I guess some folks don’t get out much.

I used to live in the valley -- Canoga Park.
Not that it should interrupt your blather...go right on.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I used to live in the valley -- Canoga Park.
Not that it should interrupt your blather...go right on.

I was referring to thunderous, not you. Brush up on your reading comprehension.

Which begs the question to begin with, why do you constantly feel the need to try and answer for thunderous when I ask questions of him? Can he not take care of himself? And haven’t we been over this before? When I want your usually dim opinion on something- I’ll ask for it.

Or do you just get off on being purposely brick-skulled and obtuse?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I was referring to thunderous, not you. Brush up on your reading comprehension.

Which begs the question to begin with, why do you constantly feel the need to try and answer for thunderous when I ask questions of him? Can he not take care of himself? And haven’t we been over this before? When I want your usually dim opinion on something- I’ll ask for it.

Or do you just get off on being purposely brick-skulled and obtuse?

I was under the impression this was an open forum. If you wish a private conversation, may I suggest a Private message?

I respond to almost any post that I feel interested in responding to....hence the nature of open posting.

I do NOT get off on being purposely brick-skulled and obtuse. Its usually inadvertant. What is your excuse?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I was referring to thunderous, not you. Brush up on your reading comprehension.

Which begs the question to begin with, why do you constantly feel the need to try and answer for thunderous when I ask questions of him? Can he not take care of himself? And haven’t we been over this before? When I want your usually dim opinion on something- I’ll ask for it.

Or do you just get off on being purposely brick-skulled and obtuse?

Do you ever take your "be nice to people" pills?

I hear you can get them cheaper in Canada, if price is a problem.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What is your excuse?

Jet lag.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Jet lag.

*toasts* here's to your record number of frequent flyer miles.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
*toasts* here's to your record number of frequent flyer miles.

*toasts* And here's to you winning the Mr. Inadvertent Award five years running! (And a shoe-in for the sixth!)

[eklipse]

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:
[Snipped Image]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
*toasts* And here's to you winning the Mr. Inadvertent Award five years running! (And a shoe-in for the sixth!)

:applause: see...its better to fight with humor than hatred. well done.

[thunderous_funker]

First of all I never said it was anything remotely resembling a conspiracy--merely one of those curious coincidences of fate, perhaps.

Facts to back me up?

Well, let's see. Darrel Issa's district is one of the hardest hit.

The #1 talk radio in San Diego is 760KFMB which boasts O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage and Mr. Recall himself, Rick Roberts. Very very popular down there.

Or perhaps that Arnie was hosting fundraising parties in Scripps Ranch which was very much in the thick of the fire.

Ok, that is all pretty general stuff. Maybe I am just making an unfair generalization. I tried to find voting record information on some of the towns that I keep hearing about on the fire news.

Granted this is a very limited investigation and I don't claim it as exhaustive or definitive by any means but by checking here and searching for towns I knew had been very hard hit I came up with this info:

place %Dem %Rep %Gore %Bush
Julian 30.2 48.6 32.9 58.7

Crestline 31.7 49.7 36.4 57.2

Big Bear City 30.0 49.5 33.4 61.2

Lake Arrowhead 25.3 59.6 30.8 65.1

Pine Valley 26.7 56.7 26.8 68.9

Ramona 27.9 49.1 29.1 66.7

Hemet 38.0 48.3 43.2 53.1

Indian Wells 16.6 72.5 23.4 75.0

Rancho Cucamonga 36.0 47.7 42.8 53.5

La Verne 35.8 47.5 41.5 54.5

Simi Valley 31.5 48.9 40.4 55.2

Valle Vista 36.2 50.7 41.0 55.9

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
First of all I never said it was anything remotely resembling a conspiracy--merely one of those curious coincidences of fate, perhaps.

That's pretty good.

I suppose I could go through and cherry pick Democrat areas affected (IE: add in Fontana, San Bernadino, Highland, etc. rather than just selecting Rancho Cucamonga) or (Chatsworth, Porter Ranch, Grenada Hills, San Fernando, rather than just Simi Valley etc..) but I admit I'm too lazy to do so!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
That's pretty good.

I suppose I could go through and cherry pick Democrat areas affected (IE: add in Fontana, San Bernadino, Highland, etc. rather than just selecting Rancho Cucamonga) or (Chatsworth, Porter Ranch, Grenada Hills, San Fernando, rather than just Simi Valley etc..) but I admit I'm too lazy to do so!

Well, the part of Fontana that is on fire (north Fontana) isn't a Democratic stronghold, but maybe you're right. Feel free to dig up some numbers and enlighten us all.

Reading my original post I realize it came out far too categorical (something I'm jumping your case about in the other thread) so I apologize. Didn't mean it to sound like that. Careless and unwarrented on my part.

But as Lerkfish pointed out, communities that insist on externalizing the costs of their risky behavior on the rest of California's taxpayers isn't a new phenomenon. Like begging for federal money to save the expensive properties on eroding beaches that shouldn't have been built there anyway and can't be privately insured because no insurance company is that stupid--that is except the federal government. And yes, these forrest communities that are regularly effected by the fire cycle. You might think the lesson was learned in the 1993 fires, but I guess not.

Everybody wants the Big Bad Tax-&-Spend government to save their ass, but nobody wants to pay for it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, the part of Fontana that is on fire (north Fontana) isn't a Democratic stronghold, but maybe you're right. Feel free to dig up some numbers and enlighten us all.

Reading my original post I realize it came out far too categorical (something I'm jumping your case about in the other thread) so I apologize. Didn't mean it to sound like that. Careless and unwarrented on my part.

But as Lerkfish pointed out, communities that insist on externalizing the costs of their risky behavior on the rest of California's taxpayers isn't a new phenomenon. Like begging for federal money to save the expensive properties on eroding beaches that shouldn't have been built there anyway and can't be privately insured because no insurance company is that stupid--that is except the federal government. And yes, these forrest communities that are regularly effected by the fire cycle. You might think the lesson was learned in the 1993 fires, but I guess not.

Everybody wants the Big Bad Tax-&-Spend government to save their ass, but nobody wants to pay for it.

When it comes to building houses on eroding beaches and such, I agree with you 100%.

But come on- living near a forest? What the hell is everyone supposed to do? Crowd into downtown Los Angeles and surround themselves with pavement so they never have to worry about wildfires?

Or how about we just chop down all the forests to begin with, pave everything, then build the houses. Don't move to downtown LA- turn the entire state into downtown LA. Problem solved.

There's just no way around it- people have to live IN the world. You can't slap a 'safety cap' on all of it.

And once again, who are these folks that don't want to 'pay for the big bad goverment'?

Would that really be people who already pay HUGE amounts of taxes, that just don't want pay ever-increasing amounts of their income to an endlessly greedy, money-hungry government- being recast as 'not paying'?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
When it comes to building houses on eroding beaches and such, I agree with you 100%.

But come on- living near a forest? What the hell is everyone supposed to do? Crowd into downtown Los Angeles and surround themselves with pavement so they never have to worry about wildfires?

Or how about we just chop down all the forests to begin with, pave everything, then build the houses. Don't move to downtown LA- turn the entire state into downtown LA. Problem solved.

There's just no way around it- people have to live IN the world. You can't slap a 'safety cap' on all of it.

And once again, who are these folks that don't want to 'pay for the big bad goverment'?

Would that really be people who already pay HUGE amounts of taxes, that just don't want pay ever-increasing amounts of their income to an endlessly greedy, money-hungry government- being recast as 'not paying'?

well, my point is that there are areas of land that are high risk for periodic disaster...its happened in the past, and regularly. There are more places than california..for example, where I grew near St. Louis, there a mississippi river flood plain, that when I was a boy, nobody built on....because it was a flood plain. then, as I grew up, people started to build there. how ridiculous...that area would flood, with some regularity at least once every 10 years. shopping malls went up. business parks. It wasn't a secret, everyone knew it was a flood plain. So, when the river flooded, like per usual on a 10 year cycle, there had to be this huge community effort with sandbags and getting kids out of school and volunteers risking their health, as well as government officials trying in vain to shore up the surging river with sandbags....which would never have to have been done if people had not built there.
although you can't predict huge wildfires, those areas ARE prone to them, there is a history.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I understand and agree with your point about flood plains. I put that in the same category as beachfront mudslide houses.

But I still stand by my own point: try as any of us might to avoid it- we’ve got to live IN the world.

It’s especially true if you choose to live in Southern California. A person can sit here smugly thinking they’ve choosen to live some place ‘farther out of the world’ than someone else who built their house up on a mountain next to a forest- only to have the whole crapshoot shaken out from under them in an earthquake. The person up on the hill’s house will still be standing while Joe and Jane Smug pick up their rubble. Mountains don't shake that much. Maybe Joe and Jane Smug are the ones who are irresponsible to build on a fault plain? Or maybe it's just that- $hit happens and it's folly to try and live with a safety net for every bad possibility?

Perhaps one can sit smugly in the Midwest- secure from those pesky earthquakes- only to have a tornado rip down your house.

Or maybe a person can run and hide from the world allllllll the way over to the east coast, only to have a hurricane knock their socks off.

There’s no getting OUT of the world. Add to that the fact that $hit happens.

[thunderous_funker]

Well for one, the residents of those forrest communities have fought tooth and nail to prevent the USFS from doing regular controlled burns to prevent catastrophic fires. They don't want the smoke and char (understandable but short-sighted).

Beyond that, there is a regular fire cycle and certain areas are just as succeptible to burns at the flood plain is to flooding or the beach is to eroding. From a risk assessment standpoint, it isn't that much different.

I don't want any of this to suggest that I'm in any way saying they deserve this or that they shouldn't be helped out. All of this started with a lazily worded and off-handed remark about how some of the highest profile fires are happening in neighborhoods that might be generalized as people that love to bad-mouth the Big Bad Tax & Spend Government that is now saving their asses.

Its part of larger trend that I am often struck by--very often the poeple who complain most loudly about the BBT&SG are the people sucking hardest on the government teat.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]Well for one, the residents of those forrest communities have fought tooth and nail to prevent the USFS from doing regular controlled burns to prevent catastrophic fires. They don't want the smoke and char (understandable but short-sighted).

Interesting.

I recall when Bush proposed measures for the USFS to do just this- not just in Cali but in affected areas across the west, it was hardly the 'Arnold supporters' who were crying foul over controlled burns and arguing that mankind should never seek to 'control nature'. Meanwhile around 5.4 million acres of forest burns up across the nation every year. (A record 8.4 million acres in the year 2000 alone.)

There was quite a lively discussion of it right here in the PoliLounge I seem to recall.

(For the record- I recall you having a rather balanced and informed stance on the matter.)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Interesting.

I recall when Bush proposed measures for the USFS to do just this- not just in Cali but in affected areas across the west, it was hardly the 'Arnold supporters' who were crying foul over controlled burns and arguing that mankind should never seek to 'control nature'. Meanwhile around 5.4 million acres of forest burns up across the nation every year. (A record 8.4 million acres in the year 2000 alone.)

There was quite a lively discussion of it right here in the PoliLounge I seem to recall.

(For the record- I recall you having a rather balanced and informed stance on the matter.)

Not quite.

Lots of Not-In-My-Backyarders turned into "environmentalists" when it came to controlled burns.

The environmentalists protested the "Healthy Forrests" initiative because it placed most control in the hands of industry and played fast and loose with the definitions of "fuel" that was ok'ed to "clear"--namely including trees of 12" diameter as "small".

I've said before, Dubya's plan is the right idea (which has been the conservationist all along) but bad implementation (too much industry discretion and poor oversight).

Its a bit more nuanced than you suggest.

Well, we've run this thread into the ground. I apologized for my overly broad statement and I think we all are glad to see the fires under control and the minimum of casualties.

The costs will be born by all of us, but then again, that is the way society works. I guess I don't know what all the pundits were whinging about during the recall about Californians being "sick of being overtaxed and overregulated". Many Californians might feel that way, but I think they have a very distorted view of exactly how shyt works (they all want protection but don't want to pay for it).

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Interesting.

I recall when Bush proposed measures for the USFS to do just this- not just in Cali but in affected areas across the west, it was hardly the 'Arnold supporters' who were crying foul over controlled burns and arguing that mankind should never seek to 'control nature'. Meanwhile around 5.4 million acres of forest burns up across the nation every year. (A record 8.4 million acres in the year 2000 alone.)

There was quite a lively discussion of it right here in the PoliLounge I seem to recall.

(For the record- I recall you having a rather balanced and informed stance on the matter.)

Not so fast, there. IIRC, Bush proposed logging, not controlled burns. The two practices are very different. Many trees need the latter to propagate, but no tree needs the former.

BG

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Just wanted to post this again, from this thread because I found it particularly insightful and balanced.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
People are kinda all over on this. Maybe I can offer some perspective.

The problem is catastrophic fire. The kinds we saw in 2000, for example. What causes catastrophic fires? The fact that normal fires haven't burned the areas as they should over the last 100 years. Why haven't they had normal healthy burns? Because from 1910-1960s we adopted a policy of total fire suppression. They put out every puff of smoke and prevented healthy normal burns.

So there are over a hundred million acres that are now high risk for catastrophic fire. We can allow catastrophic fire to happen when it does and just hope for the best, afterwards adopting a normal policy of prescribed burning and healthy management to prevent this from happening again. That, of course, leaves us open to massive devastation, loss of life, loss of property and essentially leaves the landscape useless for a generation. Not a very good option.

The other choice is to to managed thinning and prescribed burns to bring the forests into a normal state (rather than their current abnormal state of massive undergrowth, unnaturally massive dead fuel, overcrowding, etc which all lead to catastrophic burns). The Forrest Service and conservationists have had fantastic success with thining and prescribed burns to restore a forrest to its healthy state. The only downside is that its very labor intensive and expensive.

One way to subsidize the costs of thinning is to allow lumber companies to do it and monetize the fuel they remove. Industry working with the conservationists should be able to achieve wonders for less money.

So on the surface, the "healthy forrests" initiative is exactly what it claims to be. The only problem, as I see it, is the how loosely it is regulated and controlled in the proposal's current form. It would seem to be a trojan horse for allowing logging companies the kind of unfettered access to sensative areas that they once enjoyed before the conservation movement stepped in (not the radical environmental movement--real conservationists). That isn't a good thing.

Pressure your congressmen and senators to insure that proper oversight and regualation makes it back into this proposal. Its the right idea, but the execution could create real problems and abuses of our public lands if the current version makes it through. Its the right idea, but the current version of the proposal should be oppossed.

Some good points that bear repeating.

One more point I'll make (and not to get into another lengthy discussion over it, agreed this thread has rambled enough)- I've read that often times what's achieved by 'thinning' (not true logging) is the same effect achieved by controlled burns- clearing the unwanted undergrowth. Several times (maybe not in all) certain groups have sought to classify all forms of this clearing as strictly 'logging'.

It should be obvious: it’s more economic and common sense in many cases to 'clear' out and sell, the same material that would otherwise be burned. Exactly why I agree whole heartedly with your above recognition of a logical human profit motive in reasonable thinning and controlled burning measures where the goals of each overlap. (IE: prevention of wildfires, AND allowing such to be funded by the effort itself where possible)

Also, as per the original linked article that started that thread, the fact that controlled burns ARE also an issue in the initiative, may have been waxed over in the discussion.

IE: “Bush proposed his "Healthy Forests" initiative last year, and has implemented portions of it through new government rules.

They no longer require environmental studies before trees are logged or burned to prevent forest fires."