Let it burn . . .

Let it burn . . .

Deleted blog thread.

~sisyphus

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:57:36 -0500
R290396
3 years ago

microdot

Forest fires are one of the symptoms of global warming. As is deforestation. Both products of the extremes to which predatory capitalism drives the lowly human.
Especially when shitloads of hubris is involved.
I gotta tell ya, I think those foil pup tents are uberkuhl.

Post Modified: 06/27/07 07:00:37
 
R290401
3 years ago

Snark

Couldn’t agree more. Fire is a necessary, renewing, creative force in nearly every temperate ecosystem. It cannot and will not be suppressed; fires will happen, sparked by lightning if by nothing else. If people insist on building their homes in the midst of ecosystems with active fire regimes, then they should be unsurprised when it happens. I find it to be total madness that structure protection is a priority; fuck the homes. If you don’t want your house to burn, either build it in town or cut a buffer around it, and manage the forest on your property so there’s a minimum of fuel and as natural a condition as possible. And if you want your house defended against a fire – do it yourself.
And a hearty fuck yeah to your denunciation of the sense of privelege, the sense that one’s desires for a mountain house with a purty view entitles you to wantonly interfere with the workings of the ecosystem you callously invade, that all should be subordinate to your desires, and that your invasion should come without risk or negative side effects.
I always laugh darkly when I hear of massive wildfires in the hills of California. Fucking morons. Those hills are supposed to burn once every 1-2 years; Mediterranean chaparral is one of the driest, most flammable vegetation types on Earth. And you dumb fuckers are building five million dollar homes in the middle of it, then whining and bitching and stamping your feet when the inevitable – the literally inevitable and unavoidable – happens.

Post Modified: 06/27/07 07:49:22
 
R290406
3 years ago

GWHunta

(I will leave it to you folks to postulate the reasons for this ongoing drought).
Mixed-growth forests of fire-tolerant species like the self-pruning Jeffrey pine were replaced by uniform stands of dense white fir and undergrowth, which grew rapidly in the unusually wet years of the early 20th century.
Forest fires are one of the symptoms of global warming.
Five, really great pictures.
But why fan the flames of trace gas hysteria and amplify the message of the mainstream media on the general publics D-K effect regarding the impacts of climate change?
Fire in this region is to be expected and perfectly natural and the “disaster” aspect is simply one more example of irresponsible land use.
Peace,

Post Modified: 06/27/07 08:42:16
 
R290407
3 years ago

athena

Great blog.
“But why fan the flames of trace gas hysteria and amplify the message of the mainstream media on the general publics D-K effect
regarding the impact of climate change?”
Dude, seeing as you go against the scientific consensus, I can’t see anyone who fits that better than you. (The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon whereby people who have little knowledge systematically think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge.)
 
R290415
3 years ago

GWHunta

Coming from you old wise one who argued about the size of Michigan’s wolf population 50 years ago when there were none, that means a lot.
The sources cited in this blog (or Snark, for what that’s worth) clearly do not attribute this “disaster” to global warming nor climate change and those that hold up hurricane Katrina as evidence of an impact of climate change are equally intellectually dishonest.
Simply going against the scientific consensus is not what I’m about.
Critically thinking things through beyond the first plausible explanation and refining populist scientific theory is.
If the man made levees hadn’t failed, Katrina would’ve been just another in the long line of natural disasters to impact the U.S. gulf coast.
Another case of sprawling populations inhabiting weather sensitive ecosystems that have historically been prone to “disaster.”
It’s simply nature’s program of suburban renewal and another glaring example of just how bright the general population really is.
Peace,

Post Modified: 06/27/07 09:15:00
 
R290419
3 years ago

athena

“Coming from you old wise one who argued about the size of Michigan’s wolf population 50 years ago when there were none, that means a lot.”
I made it clear it was a guess based on the overall US population at the time.
Anyway, I will let anyone who isn’t bored of you beat you in the same debate as last week, and the week before that, etc.
 
R290424
3 years ago

Snark

double post.

Post Modified: 06/27/07 09:40:14
 
R290425
3 years ago

Snark

The sources cited in this blog (or Snark, for what that’s worth) clearly do not attribute this “disaster” to global warming nor climate change
Not entirely. Now, it’s undeniable that drought has played a big role in the severity of these fires. The entire West is as dry as a tinderbox, and given that we know (and you acknowledge) that shifted rainfall patterns and drought have afflicted the West, I’m not sure I’d disavow any connection whatsoever between wildfire and climate change. But that doesn’t change the fact that fire is a necessary and natural part of ecosystem processes and that humans are fucking that up.
Simply going against the scientific consensus is not what I’m about.
In my observation, yes it is. You’ve got a bone to pick with anybody who calls themselves an expert, unless they confirm your predetermined conclusions.
Critically thinking things through beyond the first plausible explanation and refining populist scientific theory is.
You spend far too much time in the echo chamber of your own thoughts to do this effectively or meaningfully. Despite the pride you take in being self-taught, and your uneven but generally strong grasp of general principles and concepts, your self-imposed isolation from literature and fellow researchers drives you into the trap of confirmation bias and self-reinforcement and unawareness of basic data and knowledge.

Post Modified: 06/27/07 09:50:48
 
R290426
3 years ago

Disenchanted

“I’m not cited in the blog.” nobody said you were

Post Modified: 06/27/07 09:40:58
 
R290427
3 years ago

Snark

Never mind; misread that.
 
R290432
3 years ago

tango

Great blog, Sis – I liked this (slightly modified) quote: “the land doesn’t listen to my wishes or that of the government
In any case, global warming is happening, climate change is happening, and these are among the results
As Sis was pointing out, regardless of the cause of the increasing durations of drought in the Western United States, such burn-offs are a regular occurrence, and the thought that these events could be contained is as egotistical as it is retarded.
However, in addition to regional warming/drought events and the influence of el nino/la nina climactic variation in the Western United States, there exists a pretty clear relationship between the warming of the mean global climate that is currently occurring, most likely due to anthropogenic emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases, and the lack of precipitation in these areas of California. For example:
Lenihan et al., 2003. Climate change effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological Applications 13, 1667–1681.
The response to increasing temperatures [and] precipitation were complex, involving not only the effect of changes in soil moisture on vegetation productivity, but also changes in tree–grass competition mediated by fire. Summer months were warmer and persistently dry under both scenarios, so the trends in simulated fire area under both scenarios were primarily a response to changes in vegetation biomass
Hansona and Weltzin, 2000. Drought disturbance from climate change: response of
United States forests. The Science of the Total Environment 262, 205-220.
The primary response [to global climate change] will be a reduction in net primary production and stand water use, which are driven by reductions in stomatal conductance. Mortality of small stature plants i.e. seedlings and saplings. is a likely consequence of severe drought
Dale et al., 2001. Climate Change and Forest Disturbances. BioScience 51, 723–734.
Climate change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought
Flannigan et al., 2000. Climate change and forest fires. The Science of the Total Environment 262, 221-229.
Forest fires could be viewed as an agent of change for US forests as the fire regime will respond rapidly to climate warming
 
R290434
3 years ago

GWHunta

Small fire suppression for a century as a contributor to the root cause of these large fire disasters is far more a factor in this phenomena than any notable climate change.
Drought and subsequent wildfires have been with us long before the smokestack and the automobile.
Peace,

Post Modified: 06/27/07 10:57:03
 
R290437
3 years ago

tango

Small fire suppression for a century as a contributor to the root cause of these large fire disasters is far more a factor in this phenomena than any notable climate change.”
I’d agree with this assertion, but that’s not really what my post was about. The increasing prevalence of drought in California has been shown to have a direct link to the increasing mean global temperature, which has been shown to have predominantly anthropogenic causes. The encroachment of human settlement in fire-prone ecosystems is part of the same problem – mainly the manipulation of our environment without regard to consequence.
Drought and subsequent wildfires have been with us long before the smokestack and the automobile.”
Again, I agree (!), but it obfuscates the fact that warming trends are inducing an increase in prevalence in drought events in the Western United States.
 
R290438
3 years ago

Snark

The encroachment of human settlement in fire-prone ecosystems is part of the same problem – mainly the manipulation of our environment without regard to consequence.
‘Zackly.
Again, I agree (!), but it obfuscates the fact that warming trends are inducing an increase in prevalence in drought events in the Western United States
Quite.
 
R290445
3 years ago

GWHunta

Again, I agree (!), but it obfuscates the fact that warming trends are inducing an increase in prevalence in drought events in the Western United States.
Dust Bowl
Do the years of drought leading to the Dust Bowl (Wiki) of the 1930’s and
subsequent relatively wet decades of the 20th century obfuscate the “increase in prevalence of drought events in the Western United States as well?”
When was the last time anybody was diagnosed with dust pneumonia.
Do try to keep regional climate swings and natural disaster in some sort of historical context.
Peace,

Post Modified: 06/27/07 11:44:22
 
R290447
3 years ago

tango

Do the years of drought leading to the Dust Bowl (Wiki) of the 1930’s and subsequent relatively wet decades of the 20th century obfuscate the ‘increase in prevalence of drought events in the Western United States as well?’”
Please point out where I said that droughts never existed prior to the recent warming trend. I didn’t say that drought was a brand-new phenomenon, nor did I say that climate change is 100% responsible for recent trends in drought prevalence. To reiterate:
n addition to regional warming/drought events and the influence of el nino/la nina climactic variation in the Western United States, there exists a pretty clear relationship between the warming of the mean global climate that is currently occurring, most likely due to anthropogenic emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases, and the lack of precipitation in these areas of California
After which I cited numerous studies that support my assertions. Please refute each one, specifically noting errors in their data analysis and methodologies, if you think that they are incorrect in their conclusions.
Drought events like the dust bowl happen with semi-regulatity. However, their prevalence is predicted to increase. And yes, you are being mendacious by obfuscating that point with your strawman/red-herring approach to this discussion.
And in case your reading comprehension wasn’t already in question, if you had bothered to read your own link you would have noticed this little gem:
The Drought alone did not cause the black blizzards. Although dry spells are unavoidable in the region, occurring roughly every 25 years, it was the combination of drought and misuse of the land that led to the incredible devastation of the Dust Bowl years
The soil conservation and management (I topic in which I teach university course) prior to the dust bowl was abhorrent, increasing the devastation that resulted from an already bad drought. The socioeconomic factors that synergistically interacted with poor soil management practices and natural drought led to the severity of that particular event.

Post Modified: 06/27/07 11:49:20
 
R290450
3 years ago

GWHunta

And again we are back to my point.
Human stewardship regarding land use is much improved and the overall North American environment is gradually improving.
The impacts of this change do not benefit all species equally, but my bet is that human beings weren’t the only victims of dust pneumonia.
Peace,
 
R290451
3 years ago

Truthcansuk

Whether it’s a forest fire, a flooded New Orleans block of homes or a hurricane desperately trying, striving, wanting to sink California into the ocean, there will always be some dumb-ass on TV the day after the fire/flood/death from above, and that person will make my day a little brighter by saying those magical words:
“I’m not going to let nature beat me. I’ll rebuild…”
 
R290452
3 years ago

tango

Human stewardship regarding land use is much improved and the overall North American environment is gradually improving
Which is why we have settlements such as the ones noted in Sis’ blog encroaching on sensitive fire-prone ecosystems?
Edit: Go play here for a while, I want to talk to Sis, Snark, Fen, et al., about ecosystem encroachment without your downhome folsky “wisdom” sideswiping an otherwise interesting discussion.

Post Modified: 06/27/07 11:55:41
 
R290455
3 years ago

Snark

Human stewardship regarding land use is much improved and the overall North American environment is gradually improving.
Yeah, only one guy at a time gets his way with her, and she gets a share of the profits. We takes care of our ho!

Post Modified: 06/27/07 11:57:08
 
R290456
3 years ago

GWHunta

At times, the clouds blackened the sky all the way to Chicago, and much of the soil was completely lost into the Atlantic Ocean.
Which by the way feeds into my theory regarding the damming of rivers and diversion of surface water back to the atmosphere, reducing nutrients to the oceans.
Do a little pre-1958 research on atmospheric CO2 and you’ll find a heretofore inexplicable decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels in the late 1930’s.
Now mind you this isn’t scientific data, but just one of GWHunta’s D-K observations, but just possibly there was a correlation between the unnatural increase in the amount of nutrients supplied to the Atlantic ocean by this additional dusting and a subsequent temporary increase in CO2 sequestration because of an increase in phytoplankton growth.
On edit: That is a great idea, the level of discourse here is far beyond my limited knowledge and understanding of environmental issues and once again I’ve obviously nothing to say to you kids that have heard it all and have thought it all through for yourselves.
Peace Out,

Post Modified: 06/27/07 12:08:59
 
R290457
3 years ago

GWHunta

Edit: Go play here for a while, I want to talk to Sis, Snark, Fen, et al., about ecosystem encroachment without your downhome folsky “wisdom” sideswiping an otherwise interesting discussion.
~Tango
Yeah, only one guy at a time gets his way with her, and she gets a share of the profits. We takes care of our ho!
~Snark
Talk about an echo chamber.
 
R290458
3 years ago

Snark

I’m not going to let nature beat me. I’ll rebuild
Interesting that that’s the perpetual response.
I’m sort of interested to know what you guys think a solution to this might be. Clearly, there’s a massive amount of demand for a little piece of mountain property of one’s own, all over the country. Is regulation called for? Should new development in highly fire-prone areas be restricted, should fewer protections be guaranteed to homeowners, should homeowners be required to manage their own fire risk? At the very least, I think we should emphasize structure protection less in firefighting plans, but what other constructive steps are needed, if indeed any are needed?
 
R290459
3 years ago

Snark

Which by the way feeds into my theory regarding the damming of rivers and diversion of surface water back to the atmosphere, reducing nutrients to the oceans
Rivers don’t supply nutrients to the oceans in significant amounts. Upwelling provides the bulk of nutrients required to support oceanic primary productivity. Aeolian and riverine sources are only locally significant, if at all.
Now, back to the topic, if you please. I know that any environmental topic rings the little bell that makes you start slobbering your pet global warming hypothesis over everything, but let’s keep this at least marginally focused on human encroachment on fire-prone, drought-prone areas.
Now mind you this isn’t scientific data, but just one of GWHunta’s D-K observations
I can tell.

Post Modified: 06/27/07 12:12:34
 
R290460
3 years ago

tango

Talk about an echo chamber
The problem is, Hunta, that your “dissenting opinion” comes with little actual knowledge but instead with an overwhelming ego and a mendacious agenda.
 
R290461
3 years ago

GWHunta

Earth sheltered construction as code would largely solve this problem and be more energy efficient as well.
Dah.
Peace,

Post Modified: 06/27/07 12:34:28
 
R290462
3 years ago

Snark

Thanks for getting back on topic. Yes, that’s a fantastic idea; it’d have the nice side-effect of reducing those goddamned ugly “I’m teh king of the forest, yo!” mini-mansions all dripping with stucco and shit.
 
R290463
3 years ago

GWHunta

Agreed. I’ve got issues with hilltop and lakeside McMansions right here in the local area.
Peace, pardon the Dah. I’m obviously an idiot.

Post Modified: 06/27/07 12:36:03
 
R290466
3 years ago

Truthcansuk

I’m sort of interested to know what you guys think a solution to this might be.
It’s not really a problem that needs solving, is it? People building homes on the edge of a crumbling cliff sort of supply their own foreseeable solution.
It’s (most-times) hard as hell to get insurance in these places for a reason. I know a fella who used to sell insurance and he say’s that people get very edgy when you explain to them that they simply can’t get, say, flood insurance if they live below tide or fire insurance if they live in a kiln…
Is regulation called for?
Can’t keep people from making stupid decisions.
Should new development in highly fire-prone areas be restricted, should fewer protections be guaranteed to homeowners, should homeowners be required to manage their own fire risk?
No, yes, and yes… There seems to be no call for actually restricting people from living where they want, so long as we’re clear that if the bear who shares the cave with them eats their kid, they don’t get to sue the Parks Dept. for not controlling the wildlife…

Post Modified: 06/27/07 12:27:56
 
R290473
3 years ago

GWHunta

Which is why we have settlements such as the ones noted in Sis’ blog encroaching on sensitive fire-prone ecosystems?
Horrible problem as compared to this:

Sometimes no Peace,
 
R290474
3 years ago

GWHunta

I think the principal disconnect regarding generational attitudes and maintaining an appropriate historical context regarding the environment is not acknowledging the fact that we are all now more than a couple generations removed from the “environmental good ole days.”
Peace,

Post Modified: 06/27/07 13:12:54
 
R290496
3 years ago

sisyphus

tango – The increasing prevalence of drought in California has been shown to have a direct link to the increasing mean global temperature, which has been shown to have predominantly anthropogenic causes. The encroachment of human settlement in fire-prone ecosystems is part of the same problem – mainly the manipulation of our environment without regard to consequence
Indeed. One of the original articles has the local freddie ecologist mentioning these changes. I’ll be curious to see the forthcoming study mentioned.
The Forest Service’s Safford noted that even the climate has come under human influence, as evidenced by global warming and increased forest fires in a dryer, warmer West.
A study being prepared documents what Safford described as a significant increase in Sierra fires during the past 21 years, which clearly goes beyond any naturally occurring cycle. source
Truthcansuk: Whether it’s a forest fire, a flooded New Orleans block of homes or a hurricane desperately trying, striving, wanting to sink California into the ocean, there will always be some dumb-ass on TV the day after the fire/flood/death from above, and that person will make my day a little brighter by saying those magical words:
“I’m not going to let nature beat me. I’ll rebuild…”
Fucking word. That was what prompted this insomnia-driven post to begin with: some lady I saw in an internet news clip crying over her destroyed McMansion and vowing to rebuild.
 
R290500
3 years ago

sisyphus

In case you all didn’t follow the links, here’s some interesting stats (derived from Cali govt so thus not broad enough in coverage, but whatever):
Most damaging wildland fires in Northern California history by number of structures burned:
1. East Bay hills fire, October 1991, Alameda County: 2,900 structures
2. Jones fire, October 1999, Shasta County: 954 structures
3. Fountain fire, August 1992, Shasta County: 636 structures
4. City of Berkeley fire, September 1923, Alameda County: 584 structures
5. 49er fire, September 1988, Nevada County: 312 structures
6. Angora fire, June 2007, El Dorado County: 240 structures so far
7. Canyon fire, September 1999, Shasta County: 230 structures
8. Old Gulch fire, August 1992, Calaveras County: 170 structures
———-
Opening that up to all of California, this would already be at 15:
Largest California Wildland Fires (By Structures Destroyed)
FIRE NAME/CAUSE, DATE, COUNTY, ACRES, STRUCTURES, DEATHS
1 CEDAR (HUMAN), October 2003 SAN DIEGO, 273,246 acres, 4,847 structures, 15 dead.
2 TUNNEL (REKINDLE), October 1991, ALAMEDA, 1,600, 2,900, 25
3 OLD (HUMAN), October 2003, SAN BERNARDINO, 91,281, 1,003, 6
4 JONES (UNDETERMINED), October 1999, SHASTA, 26,200, 954, 1
5 PAINT (ARSON), June 1990, SANTA BARBARA, 4,900, 641, 1
6 FOUNTAIN (ARSON), August 1992, SHASTA, 63,960, 636, 0
7 CITY OF BERKELEY (POWERLINES), September 1923, ALAMEDA, 130, 584, 0
8 BEL AIR (UNDETERMINED), November 1961, LOS ANGELES, 6,090, 484, 0
9 LAGUNA FIRE (ARSON), October 1993, ORANGE, 14,437, 441, 0
10 LAGUNA (POWERLINES), September 1970, SAN DIEGO, 175,425, 382, 5
11 PANORAMA (ARSON) November 1980 SAN BERNARDINO 23,600 325 4
12 TOPANGA (ARSON) November 1993 LOS ANGELES 18,000 323 3
13 49ER (BURNING DEBRIS) September 1988 NEVADA 33,700 312 0
14 SIMI (UNDER INVESTIGATION) October 2003 VENTURA 108,204 300 0
15 SYCAMORE (MISC. – KITE) July 1977 SANTA BARBARA 805 234 0
16 CANYON (VEHICLE) September 1999 SHASTA 2,580 230 0
17 KANNAN (ARSON) October 1978 LOS ANGELES 25,385 224 0
18 PARADISE (EQUIP. USE) October 2003 SAN DIEGO 56,700 223 2
19 KINNELOA (CAMPFIRE) October 1993 LOS ANGELES 5,485 196 1
20 OLD GULCH (EQUIP. USE) August 1992 CALAVERAS 17,386 170 0
 
R290502
3 years ago

a_pretty_rainbow

Mailbox Arson
By Alexisonfire
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Your mail’s not safe in this town
I strike a red bird on your face
and pour the kerosene in your mouth
I watch the match fall down your throat
I burn all your precious bowels
I watch the smoke pour from every crack
And breathe in your secret lives
All your bills, pay, and welfare cheques
But I don’t think I can stay for long
There’s lots more mail that’s not yet ash
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Im taking this town back
I watch the smoke start to rise
One hundred homes
One hundred fires
Everything you own now burns away
This town is no longer mine
It’s fucked with me for the last time
How I wish that I could see your face
When the sky is streaked with plumes
Know that it’s my signature
Upon this wretched fucking city
Mailbox Arson
My sweet revenge
Mailbox Arson
My sweet revenge
I’ll strike a match and burn away-
Every tie that binds me to this place
I’ll strike a match and burn away-
Every tie that binds me to this place
I will strike a match and burn away-
Every tie that binds me to this place
Strike a match and burn away-
Every tie that binds me to this place
When the smoke clears,
You can consider us even
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Your mail’s not safe in this town
Im taking this town back
I watch the smoke start to rise
One hundred homes
One hundred fires
Everything you own now burns away
This town is no longer mine
It’s fucked with me for the last time
How I wish that I could see your face
 
R290509
3 years ago

a_pretty_rainbow

I came across this on my favorite site of all time the other day:

Lake Tahoe Burns while liberals shrug

As a conflagration destroys homes, dreams, and lives, many liberals are mourning the loss of innocent trees.
Now before liberals get indignant and think that this is another attempt to indict an entire ideology for a tragedy, I would like to make a confession. You are right. Yet, so am I. I am absolutely blaming liberalism for this tragedy. I have no qualms about blaming people when it is their fault.
This tragedy also affected Sierra Nevada, but since that story was so eloquently written by http://www.mpinkeyes.wordpress.com, this column will only address Lake Tahoe, California.
Also, for the least sensitive of the leftists out there who wish to blame the people in Lake Tahoe for living near areas vulnerable to fire, I hope they remember that line of thought when Hollywood liberal homes in Malibu face floods.
Liberals did not start the fires themselves. That was an act of God, or for many on the left, Gaia, goddess of the Earth. What the liberals did was destroy beautiful homes the way they destroy virtually everything else beautiful in their path…with excessive government regulation.
Bill O’Reilly interviewed a citizen who was lucky enough to have the only home in the entire neighborhood survive the fires. The fellow explained that the fire spread through the brush, which in many cases was only 10 feet from many homes. There were environmental regulations in place that prevented people from clearing brush more than 30 feet from the homes. These homes were tinderboxes waiting to explode, and the inevitable fireball was ignited, razing homes with no mercy.
The lucky homeowner defied the environmental regulations, clearing brush up to 50 feet from his home. His home is still standing.
Many liberals wonder why I take such scorched Earth tactics in dealing with their philosophies and ideologies. The answer is because scorched Earth is exactly what Lake Tahoe has turned into, all because saving trees was deemed more important than human beings. This is not an isolated thought pattern.
In Oregon, the left cares about the Spotted Owl. Timber companies are harassed to protect this creature. I am not minimizing creatures big or small, but does anyone on the left understand that corporations consist of people? All we hear about in the media is wealthy CEOs, stock options, golden parachutes, and greed. What about workers? Those are the people that the left claims to fight for. How does shutting down timber companies and placing innocent workers on the unemployment line so that they cannot feed their families help society? Trees are important, but so is lumber. Should we ban people from ever using pencils and paper ever again? If not, trees sometimes have to become lumber.
Animals and trees are not as important as human beings. This fundamental difference in conservative and liberal ideologies is what separates freedom from tyranny. Directly between life and the pursuit of happiness is liberty. As the brilliant philosopher John Locke stated, “Liberty is property.”
The right to be free is the right to live in one’s home in peace. The home is the castle. The right to protect the home is why people are allowed to own guns, which the liberals are against. It is the right to protect our family and keep them safe, which is why conservatives favor school choice and home schooling. It is why we do not like people holding signs saying “Bong hits 4 Jesus” outside schools. It is about a fundamental right to feel protected. This is difficult to do when an entire group of people simply does not value human life as paramount.
For those on the left who claim that the right exploits tragedies for political gain, I point out to the left that we prefer these tragedies never occur. This is not about left versus right. It is about right versus wrong.
Everything in this world flows from doing what is right. What is right is allowing people to clear brush from their homes so that their American dreams do not go up in all consuming flames ever again.
lolz

 
R290511
3 years ago

sisyphus

What a dumbfuck.
Also, for the least sensitive of the leftists out there who wish to blame the people in Lake Tahoe for living near areas vulnerable to fire, I hope they remember that line of thought when Hollywood liberal homes in Malibu face floods
Or when they burn. I don’t consider myself a “leftist” though.
As the brilliant philosopher John Locke stated, “Liberty is property
Yeah, he also said: “we must use our property only in ways consistent with the requirements of natural law.” Whatever that might mean.
He also wrote in “Fundamental Constitutions”: “every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.”
appealing to authority rules
 
R290512
3 years ago

a_pretty_rainbow

I just appeal to teh lolz.
is that a fallacy?
 
R290513
3 years ago

lday

Knowing earthquakes were normal
the Japanese built houses of wood and paper.
 
R290520
3 years ago

sisyphus

apr – I just appeal to teh lolz. . . . is that a fallacy?
No. I actually have been meaning to rant on why the whole logical fallacy thing is bullshit anyway. My point isn’t that an appeal to authority is necessarily wrong, but that when you cite a few words by some famous person as a truth it tends to allow others to do the same with other of their writings that may not be so favorable to your argument. Appeal to authority in bumper sticker quotes rather than contextualized ideas is a shitty argumentation technique.
 
R290522
3 years ago

sisyphus

lday – Knowing earthquakes were normal the Japanese built houses of wood and paper
Yeah, but now the technocrats over there like to build shit like this:

or even better this:

Post Modified: 06/27/07 17:51:49
 
R290524
3 years ago

Szamko

The proposed structure is so large that it cannot be built with currently available materials, due to their weight. The design relies on the future availability of super-strong lightweight materials based on carbon nanotubes.
Talk about market-making.
Imagine if that was done with solar tech?
 
R290967
3 years ago

silverback

thought-provoking… thanks sis…
 
R291008
3 years ago

ZenSwashbuckler

I’m not going to let nature beat me. I’ll rebuild
Interesting that that’s the perpetual response.
I’m sort of interested to know what you guys think a solution to this might be. Clearly, there’s a massive amount of demand for a little piece of mountain property of one’s own, all over the country. Is regulation called for? Should new development in highly fire-prone areas be restricted, should fewer protections be guaranteed to homeowners, should homeowners be required to manage their own fire risk?
I don’t think a “solution” would consist of anything less than a radical revision of how homo industrialis sees the world and himself and his place and role in it. The ideology of opposable thumbs and environmental manipulation plus the short- and middle-term planning made possible by those brains we love to brag about so much – have produced a species that has more power than its instincts were designed to handle. The “be fruitful and multiply,” earth-is-here-for-our-use meme is not exclusive to the Middle Eastern monotheist religions. We won’t stop being stupid until our children start to learn cause and effect, thermodynamics, entropy, and the existential maxim at age 3.
Now, this is not to say there can’t be mitigators or stopgaps. Fire insurance (and things like it) outside of dense urban areas should be basically unobtainable. One of the things industrial civilization has done is turn our species into irresponsible children. A hundred, hundred and fifty years ago, do you think people who built their homes at the edge of a forest could get fire insurance? Gimme a break. The market (the economy) is basically paying people to keep sticking their hands in a pot of boiling water, and pretending to be surprised every time they show up at the hospital with burns. I mean, we could require every landlord, builder, developer, etc. to present a detailed history of each piece of land, so that prospective renters and homebuyers could see all relevant information, but my feeling is stupidity should be punished by nature, as it always was until we started trying to make money off it and pretending it was a human right.
 
R291009
3 years ago

ZenSwashbuckler

BTW that’s not social darwinism, that’s economic/environmental triage.
 
R291078
3 years ago

sisyphus

Word Zen. As someone who is currently looking for land (despite my misgivings about the notion of property “ownership”) it kind of amazes me the kind of stupid shit people are worried about when looking for homes/property. Things like amount of parking space, color of paint, type of appliances, warranty on the roof, or flooring type are important to most people than “house in fire/earthquake zone,” “industrial effluents in soil/groundwater,” or “house built on filled-in wetlands and prone to flooding.” If you are looking for land ask some real fucking questions please.
Oh yeah, what is up with the people who are homeless and in the shelters due to this fire needing shit like toothbrushes and razors? You mean they didn’t have an emergency go-bag packed like the government says you should in case “the terrorists” attack? Tsk tsk. I got mine and I don’t live in a place where fires/earthquakes/floods/etc. are all that likely.
 
R291088
3 years ago

sisyphus

can anyone explain to me why this doesn’t appear on my “homepage” or blogs list?
 
R291093
3 years ago

a_pretty_rainbow

weird this site is so buggy now for some reason
 
R341849
2 years ago

GWHunta

Bump

3 Responses to Let it burn . . .

  1. GWHunta says:

    Obama to Veto Any Attempt to Roll Back Automatic Cuts After Committee’s Inability to Reach Debt Deal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s