California burns because of no common sense

[Dr Mordrid]

Jezzzzz;

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/10/30/state0152EST7678.DTL&type=printable

Dr. Mordrid

[Helevitia]

So because somebody was following rules then he wasn't using common sense? Was he to know it was going to turn out to be the biggest fire in California history?

Why don't you do something more constructive with your comments like praise the firefighters for the extremely hard job they are doing or send money to the red cross(or your favorite charity).

EDIT: I'm not trying to start an argument but it just seems you are taking the situation out of context and making it look like your opinion is the right one by claiming no common sense, when in fact he was doing his job.

[mmp121]

I Think that doc means to point out the fact that common sense is less and less how shall I say it, common these days. Just because the rule says not to do something, there should be a bit of judgement used. I mean it was an obvious forest fire. Did they really think that it would just go out on its own after a while?

Yes hindsight is always 20/20, but its good to know what conditions and actions lead to the disaster so that in the future such problems can be better taken care of.

BTW, I'm also not looking to start an argument over this, just trying to point out what to me is the obvious.

[Wulfman]

what would docs posting look like if the guy had made a different decision and the plane crashed, killing the pilot?

"No one is following the rules anymore.."
"Because of no common sense pilot was killed. Everyone knows flying in the dark is dangerous."

mfg
wulfman

[Dr Mordrid]

They're supposed to be firefighters for Chrissake....and risk is part of the job. Take it from someone in a firefighting family on both sides (mine and Margies) whose members are apoplectic that it wasn't gone after right away.

What we have here is a total lack of common sense. They have had a drought related beetle infestation for 5 years that has left literally millions of dead, dry trees that were just waiting for such stupidity.

That added to an overgrowth of underbrush, present mainly because the enviro-wackos sue when the forest service tries to clear it, and any fire should get a full-bore response instead of bureaucratic whining when its bumbling gets challenged!!

Even the next day they blew it by not sending out the big tanker aircraft right away. DUMB!!

Dr. Mordrid

[paulcs]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
That added to an overgrowth of underbrush, present mainly because the enviro-wackos sue when the forest service tries to clear it, and any fire should get a full-bore response instead of bureaucratic whining when its bumbling gets challenged!!

Even the next day they blew it by not sending out the big tanker aircraft right away. DUMB!!

Dr. Mordrid

Nonsense! According to the General Accounting Office, ninety-seven percent of the 818 fuel reduction projects proposed by the Forest Service went forward without litigation. Ninety-five percent were ready for implementation within the public review period.

Over the last three years, there were NO appeals on fuel projects in the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernadino National Forests. In the last five years, I believe, there has only been one, and that was regarding a post-fire salvage.

You have told some whoppers in the service of extremist arguments -- some exploiting national tragedies -- but this tragedy is ongoing! People have died. A local firefighter from Novato was killed a couple of days ago. Homes have been destroyed and lives have been ruined. Have you no sense of decency? There are Californian Murcers, and you're a moderator. You have certain responsibilities to these forums and its membership! You should at least try to pay us some respect and give us the smallest amount of consideration.

This was a bureacratic SNAFU. A catch-22. Neither the state or the Federal Government had the resources to clear these forests, and FEMA couldn't get involved until the disaster took place. I don't know how one gets around that, but I know the solution isn't to mock people in the middle of a near-biblical tragedy.

SHAME ON YOU!

Paul

[Helevitia]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
They're supposed to be firefighters for Chrissake....and risk is part of the job. Take it from someone in a firefighting family on both sides (mine and Margies) whose members are apoplectic that it wasn't gone after right away.

And your point is? You are detracting from the point I was making which is, THEY WERE DOING THERE JOB!

What we have here is a total lack of common sense. They have had a drought related beetle infestation for 5 years that has left literally millions of dead, dry trees that were just waiting for such stupidity.

You know, normally you do your homework on issues, or atleast you pretend to. But I can tell you that the CDF has been asking the Bush adminsitration to give California funding to get rid of the infested trees. Well, guess what, they have quietly denied that request because they said they already gave us 45 million dollars and we should be happy about that. Too bad it actually costs 450 million to clear the trees. So yeah, the Bush administration really had the right to deny us the money since they only gave us 10% of what we needed.

[b]
That added to an overgrowth of underbrush, present mainly because the enviro-wackos sue when the forest service tries to clear it, and any fire should get a full-bore response instead of bureaucratic whining when its bumbling gets challenged!![b]

See comments above to see how wrong you are.

Even the next day they blew it by not sending out the big tanker aircraft right away. DUMB!!

Yeah, you are almighty and knowing since you were there

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by paulcs
Nonsense! According to the General Accounting Office, ninety-seven percent of the 818 fuel reduction projects proposed by the Forest Service went forward without litigation. Ninety-five percent were ready for implementation within the public review period.

Over the last three years, there were NO appeals on fuel projects in the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernadino National Forests. In the last five years, I believe, there has only been one, and that was regarding a post-fire salvage.

You have told some whoppers in the service of extremist arguments -- some exploiting national tragedies -- but this tragedy is ongoing! People have died. A local firefighter from Novato was killed a couple of days ago. Homes have been destroyed and lives have been ruined. Have you no sense of decency? There are Californian Murcers, and you're a moderator. You have certain responsibilities to these forums and its membership! You should at least try to pay us some respect and give us the smallest amount of consideration.

This was a bureacratic SNAFU. A catch-22. Neither the state or the Federal Government had the resources to clear these forests, and FEMA couldn't get involved until the disaster took place. I don't know how one gets around that, but I know the solution isn't to mock people in the middle of a near-biblical tragedy.

SHAME ON YOU!

Paul

You are keying on one (possibly flawed as you say) comment which was blindly anti-"liberal" and making a blindly anti-"conservative" comment in response. I don't believe Doc is mocking people in the face of an ongoing tragedy in any way whatsoever. He is pointing out that this tragedy would not have occurred if someone had placed his own common sense (and common decency) above the rules as written, and asked for volunteer pilots to go douse that fire. They should have known it was a disaster waiting to happen. Why did they not act on this knowledge? Why did they not act for the greater good? I feel that it is because they have been conditioned not to think for themselves, by a bureaucracy that has no regard for those who think for themselves, a bureaucracy that believes that the might to make rules means the rules are automatically justified.

What I am saying is that such things occur because of flawed ways of thinking. The idea is to attack these flawed ways of thinking so that no future tragedies will become of them. Governments are expected to do more than weep when tragedies occur; they are expected to be smart enough to avoid them in the first place.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Helevitia
Yeah, you are almighty and knowing since you were there

Can you offer us a different account, Dave? If that article's account is correct, they certainly could have done more at an earlier stage to prevent this tragedy.

[Helevitia]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Can you offer us a different account, Dave? If that article's account is correct, they certainly could have done more at an earlier stage to prevent this tragedy.

Nope, I can't offer you something else. I was mostly speaking out of anger. I have no idea if it is true or not. My point was, The Doc finds every little nook and cranny to show his point. He does this purposely to push peoples buttons. For instance, claiming no common sense as to why this whole fire happened.

[paulcs]

I made no blind, anti-conservative comments. I countered an outrageous lie with numbers and a credible source. There is a difference between a situation that always happens or happens frequently (and in this case was resposible for an awful tragedy) and a situation that never took place and therefore had nothing to do with the tragedy:

"That added to an overgrowth of underbrush, present mainly because the enviro-wackos sue when the forest service tries to clear it, and any fire should get a full-bore response instead of bureaucratic whining when its bumbling gets challenged!!"

vs.

"According to the General Accounting Office, ninety-seven percent of the 818 fuel reduction projects proposed by the Forest Service went forward without litigation. Ninety-five percent were ready for implementation within the public review period.

"Over the last three years, there were NO appeals on fuel projects in the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernadino National Forests. In the last five years, I believe, there has only been one, and that was regarding a post-fire salvage."

NONE of this is in the realm of opinion. These are polar opposite statements presented as fact. One claims that the underbrush that fueled the fires was present or wasn't cleared "because the enviro-wackos sue when the forest service tries to clear it." The other claims that environmentalist litigation had absolutely nothing to do with the underbrush that fueled the fires.

He lied in the service of his extremism. This has nothing to do with conservatism vs. liberalism. Political conservatism has nothing to do with some of the radical extremism we see here. I've worked closely with a number of conservative economists, sociologists, political scientists, and policy makers. I liked and respected them and valued their opinions, although mine were often different. I understand very well how people of good will and conscience can disagree on any political issue. Statements like the one made above and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with either good will or conscience.

There was no liberal vs. conservative argument in this thread. It had nothing to do with philosophy. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between conservatism and the sort of radical extremism we often see in this forum. They are polar opposites as well.

Paul