Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Politics Scott DesJarlais Thinks Forest Fire Prevention Is Inappropriate, Issues-Oriented Advocacy
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:16 AM
DesJarlais, though, thinks that Smokey Bear going around telling kids not to burn down forests is "issue-oriented advocacy among school children and college students [and] is inappropriate." You can imagine this alarms the American Forest Foundation, which points out that not teaching kids to not start forest fires isn't exactly money-saving:
In 2010, 36,108 human-caused wildfires burned in the southern region of the United States, an area represented in part by Rep. DesJarlais. Seeing as firefighting costs the government about $700 per acre, federal spending would be higher without Smokey Bear’s powerful message.
Honestly, people, if "Only you can prevent forest-fires" is too liberal a message for Republicans, I am at a loss. Aren't they all about individuality? It is "only you" — not "only you and the people in your community," not "only you and your hippie friends," not "only you and the rest of the communist collective." Could the message be any more friendly to the Republican party?
And let's just take a moment to focus on DesJarlais' other cost-cutting measures. The sum total he has found to advocate for cutting is $337 million dollars over 10 years. According to DesJarlais' own press release, we have over $15 trillion dollars in debt.
This is an instance when seeing it written out is helpful:
$15,000,000,000,000 in debt
$337,000,000 in cuts
If you make all of DesJarlais' cuts, you still have $14,999,663,000,000 in debt — which, let's be honest, is 15 trillion — and no Smokey Bear. It's like a joke. I mean, it would be a joke if people didn't read about it and think it was some kind of serious proposal. But DesJarlais is relying on the fact that our monkey brains don't really understand large numbers very well. So $337 million sounds enormous. Hell, it is enormous. And it sounds like more than enough money to put a dent in something, right? It sounds like DesJarlais is doing something.
But the truth is that $15 billion is so much more enormous than DesJarlais' proposed cuts that they barely register. All he's done is hurt Smokey Bear. He hasn't even begun to save the nation.
Comments (40)
Showing 1-40 of 40
Just looking at this TeaPartyLiberterian Republican Fools face tells me all I need to know . I guess Teddy R. was a Liberal Progressive Tea Hugging Democrat and not a Republican. There hasn't been many "Real" Republicans since Teddy R and Eisenhower but lots of TrumpRepublicanTeaBags. Yes ,The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin the Grifter Party!
Kids now go take your matches and lighters outside in the woods because Smokey The Bear is no more Enjoy !
Republicans suck! Republicans hates everything but MONEY and POWER!
like
dislike
As usual another story making an apple looks like a raccoon! If the Congressman
accomplishes Ten dollars in cuts to the 15 Trillion dollar deficit it will be more than
the President, who has added 4 trillion to the total, will accomplish in his ONE term!
NeverFear trots out the same inaccurate talking points that are dominating the discussion on the right when talking about the deficit. Ezra Klein produces, as of July of this year, the actual numbers, and compares them to Bush (who governed for six years with Republican majorities in congress).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k…
Chris, it is no use trying to cite facts, logic or truth when dealing with the repeat-by-rote talking points of FOX and Limbaugh. You can never convince them.
DesJarlais should be congratulated, though. It takes a lot to be a more ignorant and embarrassing nut than, say, Marsha Blackburn, but he has accomplished that. Maybe he'll hold a gun in his mouth until the House votes in his anti-forest fire agenda.
Well, maybe this guy is on to something. After all, who's to say Smokey Bear isn't actually spying for his commie cousin, the Russian Bear?
@Perry Aubric- I know. I've learned the hard way from some other commenters on this board that when someone needs to believe something is some way, no amount of actual facts that disprove what they are contending is going to matter. That's why I've largely just started ignoring them. NeverFear just happened to trot out a typical whopper so I felt the need to respond.
@Packrat- Desjarlais probably considers Smokey the Bear a symbol for environmentalism and therefore a trojan horse to bring in Socialism. I'm not joking, that's how a lot of guys like him think.
This is an example of the assumption that EVERY public issue is ideological in nature and that the government must refrain from choosing sides on it. This is stupid and must end.
This just in: FOX Business News is attacking the Muppets for being Communists. Seriously.
It must be really scary to be a Republican these days, I almost feel sorry for them. So many Commies and propagandists lurking behind every bush. Someone should take DesJarlais’ guns away, for his own safety. Remember what happened last time ...
"This just in: FOX Business News is attacking the Muppets for being Communists. Seriously."
Next up: FOX Business News does a feature on Henry F. Potter..."Hollywood's Liberal Plot to Villify Bedford Falls' Premiere Job Creator."
@Min ... very funny. Unfortunately, not out of the realm of possibility.
Bar graphs in CA's link to the Washington Post are so out of whack to the casual eye in at least two areas that the whole graph must me considered, to put it politely, erroneous and typical liberal fudging of figures. For instance, the cost of ongoing wars is all attributed to Bush and nothing to the continuance under Obama. Also Obama extended Bush's tax cuts and that was not noted. Also the major portion of housing tax credits are being accumulated on Obama's watch and the money to Fannie Mae (received $6 billion in bailout this past quarter) and Freddy Mac are vain efforts to prevent their collapse from liberal influence (affordable home loans). So the graph, instead of being scientific, is just more crap like the importance of and reactions to this particular blog.
Illegal aliens entering our country from Mexico are believed responsible for one-third of human-ignited wildfires in Arizona from 2006 to 2010, according to a Government Accountability Office report. The number may be even higher, because only a few of the known fires on federal and tribal land were investigated.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/…
While this doesn't excuse fires caused by illegal immigrants, it's worth noting that the report says, "Efforts to signal for help, provide warmth or cook food appear to be the source of the fires, according to the report." It's not like they're doing it for economic gain or spite.
"So the graph, instead of being scientific, is just more crap like the importance of and reactions to this particular blog."
More irony from this blogs top commenter (of course measured by quantity, not quality). But the graph is not out of whack at all. In fact, Ezra Klein is highly respected and knows far more about this than you do. Obama doesn't, and has never, intended to extend the Bush tax cuts. He wants to end them but the grid-lock in congress has so far prevented that from happening. But the same gridlock will make sure they expire. And since you are including that in your argument, are you saying that the tax cuts shouldn't be extended? I was beginning to think you were extremely predictable. Likewise, the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan are correctly attributed to Bush, who made the decision to go in to those countries. Therefore that spending belongs to Bush, just like the new spending attitributed to Bush's prescription drug benefit plan, which is costlier than the ACA. I'm sure guys like you will make sure that Obama is tagged with 100% of the federal spending connected to the ACA (since it's his policy), even after he is president. And he should. You are also completely incorrect, as usual, about the housing tax credits and Fannie Mae.
That's the problem with using "the casual eye" when critiqing the analysis from people paid to do so. The "casual eye" sees what it wants (and truly needs) to believe, rather than cold, hard evidence.
Yes, Pete, I bet that's what our neighbors said when my 5-year-old sister accidentally set their yard on fire.
I guess it was Daddy's fault for smoking cigarettes and leaving out the matches.
That reminds me -- Chris, I know you're addressing gast there, but you and some others have made more comments than I have, so I don't think I'm really a top commenter. The calculator may need new batteries.
Donna, I think it's based more on recent comments. I've got a lot of comments but it goes back a ways. I haven't commented as much over the last couple of months.
Unlike most of the fools commenting here, I actually worked as a forest fire fighter and the US Forest Service realized many years ago that fires are a natural part of the cycle of forestation/deforestation process in most parts of the US. Indeed, many conifers's cones in the west will not open nor their seeds germinate without fire. The process of always dousing fires is what has led to most of the out of control fire situations that occur now. The buildup of the fuel load now means that when a fire does occur, there is very little chance of controlling it until a weather change occurs in many areas. It has also led to a situation where many former meadows and other naturally occurring landscape features are being replaced by stands of trees, thus depriving many species of their natural habitats and leading to extinction or near extinction events, especially of amphibians.
The fact that some forest fires are actually good for forests occurred to me also, David. I don't know as much about it as you do but I have read about how the suppression of minor fires can lead eventually to uncontrollable major blazes. But this certainly doesn't seem like a good reason not to tell children that they should be careful with fire in the wild, does it? It may be a good policy to have a larger program of controlled burns, but I don't think we'd want to farm some of the work out to random youngsters fooling around with matches. If some of the educational efforts DesJarlais wants to eliminate really are of the Smokey the Bear "be careful with matches" variety, then he seems extremely short-sighted.
Betsy is correct on several points. in particular, the savings from Congressman DesJarlais' proposal would not amount to much {and that doesn't factor in the economic costs of forest fires} and that his district is one that ought to be particularly concerned with the problem. After all, there are no small number of homes and businesses bordering forests in the 4th.
Chris, I am general agreement that President Obama is not responsible for all the spending on the wars since he did not start them. Similarly the Prescription Drug Bill is much more expensive that necessary because Republicans chose to protect Big Pharma. However, Fannie/Freddie expenses are mostly due to long-range Democratic policies.
Regarding your comment to Perry about people believing things regardless of facts, that is hardly unique to conservatives on this board or in general. How many times have supposedly informed liberals here incorrectly suggested that the New Deal ended the Depression or that the Great Society improved the welfare situation in America? And how many times have liberals here criticized conservative concern about Islamic extremism while advocating guilt by association for conservatives who support the Tea Party or anyone who is a members of the Belle Meade Country Club?
The graph is a liberal fraud (it's in the Washington Post, for criminy sakes) and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are ground zero for the monetary meltdown. Some people don't believe that but they do believe that somehow Obama is not responsible for $4 trillion in additional debt since he took office. Yeah, right.... There is a reason liberals are worse at math than conservatives, math takes logic.
So Obama doesn't share the responsibility for that additional debt with anyone, Gast? Nobody at all? He did it all by himself?
@Mark Rogers: You've just opened an interesting can of worms. If President Bush is totally responsible for the war in Afghanistan, shouldn't he be credited with getting Bin Laden? And if there is anyone foolish enough to say that particular invasion was not necessary, I do want to hear their alternative solution for taking out an entrenched establishment harboring the man responsible for 9-11.
Gast, the fact that bin Laden was found in Pakistan would be one argument against what you just said--I think. What you said doesn't really make enough sense to be confrontable.
Gast,
No. President Bush mishandled the early efforts to get bin Laden in his efforts to go after Saddam. Had we ignored Iraq until Afghanistan was settled, we would have had more than enough troops to capture bin Laden and enough resources to turn that nation into a modern West Virginia, or at least West VA in the mid-20th century.
President Obama deserves credit for his decisions relating to the killing of bin Laden. From keeping Gitmo open to the use of information derived from enhanced interrogation methods, he has done an admirable job of prosecuting the war on terror.
@Mark Rogers: Obama tried to shut Gitmo down, as he promised and, of course, keeping it open was a reversal of his campaign promise. But then attempting to bring a terrorist to trial in New York City was a fiasco, and illustrated how out of touch with reality the man can be.
As far as credit for killing Bin Laden, that should go to the intelligence community and not to any president as it was open season no matter who was in office.
In 1991 I advised Bush 41 to roll on into Baghdad and take out Hussein during the Gulf War but, alas, my television did not transmit my urgings to the White House and Bush 41 heard Brent Scowcroft instead, so we left Iraq with a job undone which led to much controversy ten years later for Bush 43 despite our quick victory. Mother Nature seems to have a law that to ignore or appease aggression or idiocy leads to further aggression and idiocy and that's why I'm for taking care of the Saddams of this world as quickly as possible. After all, he was Hitler incarnate but on a smaller scale and no one is mourning his absence.
@Pete Wilson: I'll make it simpler; How are you going to get the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden? We asked nicely, they refused - there is video of them congratulating him about 9/11 - and so we invaded. What's your alternative to that? A protest at Legislative Plaza?
Controlled burns may be something the United States learned from the American Indians, who did this regularly for the health of ecosystems and for other reasons.
I guess I could ascribe my sister's short turn as a firebug to ancestral memory (Cherokee).
So unfairly attacked, those poor Belle Meade Country Clubbers. Racial purity is so misunderstood. Why, the most charitable, the most spiritual people I know belong to whites only clubs. It saves so much on plumbing. You know, whites only bathrooms and water fountains. Jesus himself would not mind a little discrimination... in the proper degree of course. Nothing vulgar. I'm sure there's something about that in the bible.
@bert39: Nice texture to your comment; direct, forceful and to the point...reminiscent of Wifii.
Mark, I agree, idiocy and partisan talking points go both ways. Too often people argue for what they want to believe, even if it flies in the face of facts. For the record, I'm not one of those who claims the New Deal ended the Depression. Hitler, and the Japanese, had a hand in that. It did, however, give people some confidence and a sense the government was trying to do something.
And we could go around and around about Freddie and Fannie. Whether they were solely Democratic policies (and I think they were more bipartisan than you admit. See Newt Gingrich about that) or not, it doesn't mean that one can just add them to Obama's deficit count since they largely predate Obama's term in office.
Chris,
I meant that the President should be responsible for the costs of Fannie and Freddie going forward. I don't say many good things about Newt but I have to say that the problems with Fannie and Freddie were structural and lie with the management and Congress. Newt didn't have that much clout after his Speakership because DeLay rejected his approach on policy.
You libtards seem to be suggesting that Smokey the Bear cannot support himself without government help! Bears that cannot fish and hunt for themselves should be put in private zoos and off the government dole! Smokey has become the perfect example of a Welfare Bear! I just emailed Donald Trump in hopes that he will bring this up in his debate! I want to hear what Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, The Newt and My Man Rick Santorum have to say about this!
Thank you Scott Desjarlais for bringing this to our attention!
@Pete Wilson: We chased Bin Laden from Afghanistan into Pakistan when we invaded. The Taliban were very happy for him and his success until we invaded. I get the impression that you favored an approach other than a military solution. So what was it?
