Current weather

  • Overcast
  • 39°
    Overcast
  • Comment

Current policies hurting country

Posted: September 5, 2013 - 3:37pm  |  Updated: September 6, 2013 - 8:56am

It’s time for you tree huggers to take the gloves of and defend your wasteful mismanagement of America’s National Forest. How many hundreds of tons of CO2 and ash are being pumped into the atmosphere by the raging fires all over the west? Current road-less policy is sure an effective way of keeping heavy equipment from being available to manage these fires. It is not managing our national forest to simply lock them up and prevent harvest of the resource. It is gross mismanagement to allow the very needed resource to America’s housing market to just go up in smoke! Not to mention the unfunded debt of paying for the thousands of National Forest retirees benefit packages! That will amount to about $1,000,000 for each retiree living 15 years after retirement. That unfunded means they were just planning on printing that money! Somebody should sue the Forestry Department for wasting our national resources.

Add them to the list of Departments, like the Department of Energy (DOE) whose 15,000 employees couldn’t do their business in a timely manner as to support the “Center Piece” of the American oil industry, the Keystone Pipeline. The EPA and DEC for 4 states (74 counties) and 3 provinces somehow got all those ducks in a row and were ready to roll. But our DOE stopped the progress on a dime, or was that a call to President Obama? An executive order was issued to stop the work of 50,000 Americans from North Dakota to Texas because 15,000 employees of the DOE didn’t get their job done! I feel my President should be over at the DOE rolling heads out the door. It is part of a mismanagement policy based on the “Perceived Social Value” of anything the government locks up.

Then we have hundreds of millions of folks back East who feel they own the forest and you rascally Westerners had better stop cutting it! I just wish it was these policies going up in smoke and not any hopes we have of energy independence. The waste of our National Forest is due the road less policy and now somebody thinks they can stop Global Warming by stopping the Keystone Pipeline. And as the old timers say someday there will be another Pipeline in the sky.

  • Comment

Comments (18) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
JohnPeterZenger
729
Points
JohnPeterZenger 09/06/13 - 11:19 am
3
1
From tree huggers to

From tree huggers to pipelines in the sky, and in between is some of the most misapplied misapprehension, misconstrual and fearmongering I've heard since I last tuned into the likes of Beck, Limbaugh or Hannity.

Some hunter starts a fire in California and suddenly it's roadless policy that causes a million dollars in cash to be going to each of the thousands of Forest Service retirees?

What?

Complaining about 'energy independence' while calling for the importation of foreign oil all in one breath is truly weird.

Since when is the importation of Canadian tar the 'centerpiece of the American oil industry?

TransCanada corporation isn't 'the American oil industry', it's a foreign corporation.

You can't achieve 'energy independence' through importation of foreign oil, that's a direct contradiction.

But then, according to the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity, direct contradictions have always been their usual stock in trade.

BigRedDog
659
Points
BigRedDog 09/06/13 - 04:43 pm
1
4
Trains and Trucks

That is what is being used to transport the nations newest huge oil discovery in North Dakota. The lack of the Key-Stone connection to the refineries in the south is the problem. Bet you good money the retirements of all those DOE employees is unfunded but that isn't a problem to you.

Suss
3894
Points
Suss 09/06/13 - 07:08 pm
2
0
FERS fears?

Not real sure what the retirement concerns or scare tactics are all about. The FERS are pretty basic civil service retirements, they are not so great, in fact they are fairly mediocre compared to the big oil retirement packages.
FERS Information
Congress created the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) in 1986, and it became effective on January 1, 1987. Since that time, new Federal civilian employees who have retirement coverage are covered by FERS.

FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Two of the three parts of FERS (Social Security and the TSP) can go with you to your next job if you leave the Federal Government before retirement. The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life.

The TSP part of FERS is an account that your agency automatically sets up for you. Each pay period your agency deposits into your account amount equal to 1% of the basic pay you earn for the pay period. You can also make your own contributions to your TSP account and your agency will also make a matching contribution. These contributions are tax-deferred. The Thrift Savings Plan is administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

For more information about TSP, see their website (external link). See the SSA website (external link) for more information about the Social Security portion of your retirement benefit. This website covers the Federal Employees Retirement System. Through the menu links on the left, you can find information about the following FERS retirement topics.

http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/

Allen
636
Points
Allen 09/06/13 - 08:08 pm
0
0
News Flash

Part of the Yosemite Rim fire is in Yosemite National Park, and national parks aren't open to timber industry logging (and federal taxpayer subsidies for that industry). That's the way the National Park System was set up almost one hundred years ago. The Park is public land that belongs to all the public in the U.S., not just the people in the west. So yes, easterners have a say in how Yosemite is managed, just like westerners do.

I don't see how clearcutting Yosemite for firewood will reduce Americans' dependence on foreign oil. Burning wood for fuel is just as wasteful and non-sustainable as burning oil, and it is probably more hazardous to your health. Most of the timber that is cut on national forest lands goes overseas to Asia, that doesn't help our housing industry.

Your rant is not based on facts. Stanislaus National Forest, where 2/3 of the Rim fire is located, has a forest management plan that encourages multiple uses, including harvesting trees and timber mills, as well as recreation. This forest is in heavy demand for recreational use by San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County residents, that's millions of people. This forest was also logged in the last century. It takes time for trees to grow back.

JohnPeterZenger
729
Points
JohnPeterZenger 09/06/13 - 09:23 pm
2
2
Your 'reply' is to invent

Your 'reply' is to invent more conjecture?

This time about what or whether I might care about, according to you, some imaginary plight involving DOE employees? Come again?

And you say you'll bet good money that you can tell what I think?

You've certainly convinced me of one thing,

...and I'll bet good money it's not what you think.

BigRedDog
659
Points
BigRedDog 09/07/13 - 07:19 am
2
3
Part of a Fire

Part of a fire is in a Park, but last year almost 26 million acres of our US forest went up in smoke. What good is your policy when lightning touches of a BIG one? We need to make it clear, that portion of National Forest you control with your vote just went up in smoke and I am tired of seeing you overstep your vote and tread on mine! Your rights are not somehow endangered by some population of people prospering through the harvest of ripe forest! The US Forestry Dept. was set up to preserve and manage our national forest. The forest of this great nation are NOT all yours, and any policy that strictly prohibits rational harvest has been shown as ineffective, leading to the uncontrollable carnage we have watched for decades.
Just WHAT has the DOE contributed to this great nations economy? It has produced NOTHING and is incapable of producing anything for the hundreds of billions we have poured into it! It has consumed vast portions of the nations wealth and been nothing but a MONEY hole! The entire DOE is typical of the liberal spend and tax mindset that I know we will NEVER be able to question or change. They don't even seem to care that North Dakota can keep that pipeline full for 30 to 50 years! And while you are hiding your head in the oil tars of Canada along with 50,000 American jobs, China is cozying right up to our Northern neighbor. They plan a pipeline to their own west coast and will deposit there in!
What Dept. will you think of next? Some other high dollar drain hole that sparks of liberal enlightenment while all the time costing some good old down home BUCKS.

JohnPeterZenger
729
Points
JohnPeterZenger 09/07/13 - 08:01 pm
2
2
Big Imagination

What? It just gets more off the wall the further you attempt to justify your disjointed incoherence.

26 million acres of US forest? Care to cite your source for this misinformation? Gross exaggerations and fantastical inventions won't help you in any quest to gain yourself any credibility. If you want to be taken seriously, try being serious, try at the least, to be candid, truthful and objectively factual.

What public policy is it exactly have you designed to thwart God in his plans to send lightning our way? That's some powerful public policy.

And votes? Your concern about votes? Other people's votes trump your vote because you're in the minority. It's the American way. Love it or leave it.

You've again continued to show you're not in much of a position to speak coherently of 'rationality'.

If you don't understand basic economic theory or economic practices at all, blaming some mythical group of 'liberals' every time you're stumped isn't going to help you understand how the world actually works. You should try maybe a textbook. Help you sort out some of those misconceptions.

Whether you invent them or you were just fed the inventions, mythical inventions of 50,000 imaginary jobs won't do it either.

And now? Now of all things, China and some 'unnamed' Northern neighbor is a threat to your insufferable paranoia?

It's quite a ride you've taken, you might want to get off at the next stop.

I'll leave inventing what department next to you, you've done a great job so far creating a word salad liberally sprinkled with meaningless references to your own departments of choice.

If you're concerned with increasing wildfires, you might want to check into what's causing the extensive droughts which lead to an increase in those fires. Here's a clue, it's not the UN, it's not 'liberal spend and tax' (as you say), either.

BigRedDog
659
Points
BigRedDog 09/08/13 - 07:03 am
2
3
Must be dark in there!

Don't know where your hiding your head and any logic, but China has been courting the oil reserves in Canada for sometime. So with the huge decline in our dollars value as trade currency, watch what happens when your liberal spending drags the dollar to that free-fall. What if Canada doesn't care to have China pay in US dollars and trades in Chinese currency?
Still want to act cute with meaningless sprinkles and continue to spend billions fighting fire after fire until it all burns anyway! There is evidence that sometime in the recent American Western past of a drought that lasted some 1500 years! Did WE cause that drought with our campfires back then? But to continue to do something that has proven to be ineffective years after year, time after time is stupid spending or policy. I don't care which I'm tired of paying for STUPID in Government. You like the current money being spent to fight outrageous fires that employ thousands firefighters but NEVER bares any fruit for their effort! How about having those same crews out there building fire breaks and paying their wages with the harvested timber? Or do you continue the anal retentive, let it burn and we'll put it out policy?

JohnPeterZenger
729
Points
JohnPeterZenger 09/08/13 - 09:10 am
2
2
There goes that imagination again.

Here I thought sure you'd tell us where is this 26 million acres that burned? You never did follow up and let us know where you're coming up with these zany proclamations of yours, you only forge ahead with even more convoluted spin, spume and sputter.

'My' liberal spending?

Ignoring the fact that any spending wouldn't be mine, it's Congress that spends, and to top that off, evidently you're unaware that the deficit has been going down, not going up.

What if Canada does something that you dreamt up in your paranoid imagination? Right, I'm all aflutter waiting for that to happen.

Act cute with meaningless sprinkles?

In the 'recent past' you claim a 1500 year drought and that there's some applicable sense or logic to be made from that vindicating your disjointed word salad?

I 'like' the current spending, what?

You heard a psychological term or phrase once and think you might be able to use it without understanding any context whatsoever, let alone defining characteristics described by such phrase?

Fox News should give you an hour long show, I'd tune in just for the entertainment value, (well, maybe once), but their regular viewers would be scintillated by your acuity, your keenness of vision. After all, they eat up anything that smacks of cognizant disconnect.

I can't wait for the next installment of another hodgepodge of imaginary fears and unfounded inanity.

Surely you'll tell me what I think about several more of your creations.

See if you can work in more talk of happy sprinkles, I'm dying to follow that remark to it's, (ahem), logical conclusion.

BigRedDog
659
Points
BigRedDog 09/09/13 - 07:53 am
1
3
Yes 26 million acres

That's the total since 2009 and only 9.1 million acres in 2012 making it the 3rd highest yearly loss since 1960. So yes we are loosing a lot of forest to a policy issue! Somebody can't jerk their head out of the sand and say let's build some fire breaks! We are not talking clear cutting miles and miles of forest, just building defensive infrastructure within our national forest. And there is no since wasting the timber harvested to accomplish these fire wise managing positions. We could even bid out contracts to our Timber Industry for the work of defending our forest and not have to pay 10,000 firefighters wages every stinking year!
Logic says if we don't take such measures as protecting our forest we will be forced to continue this burn and loose cycle. Where of millions of acres burn and the loss of fortunes fighting the resulting fires continue year after year. The method you are defending is cyclic and continuing without preserving the forests you claim these policies protect. You are full of air and hostile intent for anyone that dares to cross your myopic point of view. Locking up a renewable yet perishable resource has proven to be expensive and foolish. So keep your babble to the point, what can you do to limit the damage of fire in our National forest. Particularly since we are talking about saving forest not popping off about talking points.

JohnPeterZenger
729
Points
JohnPeterZenger 09/09/13 - 10:05 am
2
3
No, not what you said.

You said, and I'll quote: "Part of a fire is in a Park, but last year almost 26 million acres of our US forest went up in smoke."

...last year 26 million acres went up in smoke.

Baloney.

You can't decide now to say something different as if you hadn't said what you did say earlier. Reality doesn't work that way.

Now that you have been and continue to be trapped in your own disconnects and shown to be full of fallacious nonsense I'm full of air and hostile intent?

You're precious.

George Bush's administration attempted to sell the nonsense you're peddling. He called it the Healthy Forest Initiative. It was doublespeak, pretty much like his Clear Skies Initiative, which wasn't going to create any clear skies, it was an attempt to gut the Clean Air Act.

The folly that was the so-called Healthy Forest Initiative was only cover for deregulated corporate freebies.

You might be able to sell that twaddle on Sound Off, but don't expect sane and rational people to buy into such hokum. Bush and his policies were rejected. You aren't going to make those failed policies rise from the ashes.

(no pun intended)

What's next on your slate of wingnuttia? I don't follow along with the narrative out of the wingnut camp, what is the latest and greatest doomsday paranoia. You've got to do better than just drag up old failed policies from the Bush administration.

BigRedDog
659
Points
BigRedDog 09/10/13 - 05:56 am
2
3
don't get published a lot JPZ?

Attack, attack, but I'm sticking to theme, 26 million acres burned up in the past 4 years. And some dweed thinks the policy that allowed this carnage of MY national forest is good policy. I got news for you, it's going to continue next year and the year after that and that and another 25 or so million acres will go up in smoke guaranteed! So yes I am going to say something about my concern and I don't mind an attack from some phobia ridden nay-sayer.

number3
75
Points
number3 09/10/13 - 12:38 pm
1
2
The liberal way

But Dog don't you know it is better to have the forest burn than to harvest a renewable resource that might actually provide jobs, services and products. Profit is bad. All of those greedy corporations my gosh what are you thinking.

Just line up for your foodstamps, Obamacare and public housing. Working for a living is over rated.

JohnPeterZenger
729
Points
JohnPeterZenger 09/10/13 - 04:16 pm
1
1
sticking to an imaginary 'theme'

What 'theme' is it that you're sticking to exactly? You mean this outrage of the day of yours? You've bounced around any number of disconnected wingnut talking points from fires to retirement benefits to your faked doublespeak about energy independence, tax and spend democrats, your imaginary alliance between some Northern neighbor and China, and you're attempting to link this all together with some imaginary fire policy which you can't even identify.

You speak of loss of acreage because of fire. But then you don't evidently know if you're talking about forest service land, or all the fires on all the lands in the nation. Your 'statistics' you throw out are uncredited, unsourced and/or wholly erroneous. (mostly erroneous)

You speak of 'the policy',

...but you haven't identified any single policy from any of the many several different agencies which actually do promulgate policy. Your blanket unspecified generalities and your several unfounded presumptions just aren't coherent. There is no single policy governing responses to wildfire. You can attempt to invent one and then whine about it but you're not dealing with actual reality when you do that. One can always whine about policy, but if you don't bother to educate yourself about actual policy, you won't ever be addressing objective realities.

You state you're going to 'stick to your theme'.

I believe you will. I think you find whining about your imaginary and wholly constructed fears preferable to confronting objective substantiated evidence which contradicts your many misconceptions and disconnects.

(don't look now, but you might have attracted a groupie)

beaverlooper
3072
Points
beaverlooper 09/10/13 - 05:39 pm
2
0
read your own posts

Dog,you might want to read your previous posts before posting anew,you might not contradict yourself so much. As for FERS retirement ,I'll bet it doesn't hold a candle to your IBEW retirement.

JohnPeterZenger
729
Points
JohnPeterZenger 09/10/13 - 09:00 pm
0
1
That a new 'theme' ?

Or just a more honest portrayal of the old theme?

BigRedDog
659
Points
BigRedDog 09/12/13 - 06:02 am
0
0
Rock out John

Guess we can just go on barrowing and running the tab up on anything John likes? You talk of whining yet that is the only theme in the rants you attack other commenters like some Oracle of Clarion Comment page. And I do believe the Editor publishes articles that he feels will stir the pot, and as a platform for perspectives other than JOHN's. You leave to much in the pot to long and it just goes rancid, so you have to stir it up, tell me is it soup yet JPZ?

JohnPeterZenger
729
Points
JohnPeterZenger 09/12/13 - 08:48 am
0
0
At sea. Aimless.

You sound positively adrift now.

Without conscious coherence.

Lost the will to invent stuff?

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS