Another reason to get rid of Bush
Published on March 3, 2004 By Wahkonta Anathema In Misc
President Bush is clearly vying for title of worst President this country ever had. I go around the net and find he is sabotaging or destroying on just about any topic one can come up with. I really think he is kicking this thing over the cliff as he does not intend to be re-elected. You are aware of my archive on the whys of this matter, but it is becoming so clear now it seems the blog was not at all prescient to say so anymore.

In this day he is now opening the Sequoia forest to logging. Trees that have stood through this nations entire history, untouched by any President ever, are now going to be deliberately destroyed for money. It is an insult to all Americans of any Political party to have such greed and callous disregard for the quality of our lives and state of our Nation.

You name it and he's wrong about it. Here's a couple excerpts on his plans to kill off trees older than America itself:
EXCERPT BEGINS

Under the guise of forest fire prevention, the Bush Administration's Forest Service has proposed logging in California's Sequoia National Monument, home to some of the world's tallest and oldest trees, reaching ages of 3,200 years or more.[1] Also at risk are the Pacific fisher, the California spotted owl, and many other threatened species dependent on ancient forest habitat.[2]

Under the Forest Service's "preferred alternative," 80,000 acres would be opened for logging, including trees up to 30 inches in diameter, a size not permitted in most National Forests throughout the Sierra Nevada.[3] The Forest Service's proposal calls for 180 clearcuts, producing 10 million board feet a year.[4]

In a final insult, the Forest Service plan will actually be subsidized by taxpayers, to the tune of $34 million. Much of that will go toward road building, even though there are already 900 miles of roads in the Monument. And nearly $14 million of taxpayer money will be spent for "mechanical thinning of conifer" -- otherwise known as logging. [6]
EXCERPT ENDS click link for copy verify

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 05, 2004
Question: What does a Sequoia usually die of ? They usually die of getting top heavy and fall over
Question: When was the last time a Sequoia fell down in your park ? Three trees have fallen over in 1999.One fell over a couple of months ago, but only half of it fell.
Question: Does the Sequoia tree have any natural enemies? They don’t have many. Some are fungus, bugs, animals, and humans.
Question: How many prescribed fires are set a year ? Never Enough.

Answers by Park Ranger Naturalist, Ranger John Lockhart.






















on Mar 06, 2004
http://california.sierraclub.org/sequoia/
http://california.sierraclub.org/sequoia/
on Mar 06, 2004
oops
http://california.sierraclub.org/sequoia/
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15672
on Mar 07, 2004
Wise Fawn: you do well and I thank you for the defense. I don't have concern for some replies though. It is just blogging and those who have a stake in suppressing information are on the spot, not me. I would just as soon take a fool out back of the courthouse and try a piece on my arm than respond to it.. These are people who couldn't beat me waking up in the morning, and they just don't garner enough respect to take time for reply. They are just bloggers who speak as they choose and that is the gig. I won't censor, just ignore. The owner Republicans censor adverse opinion and control rankings for their own baby-a---- ends. Why would a American bother with such rubbish people?

I don't need a defense of the fact this President is the worst environmental President - before that Governor- this country has had. Any body find the article supports the claim he wants to cut down trees to save them? Such is nonsense for nonsense followers of Republicrats. Okay then, let's move on. It's a real world with real events; the interpretations of them are for the mortal who defends Bush. I could care less for a Bush supporter as they are - let me be more personal , and say HE is - by definition, a fool.

Oh, and if you want to see adverse opinion censorship for what it is, consider this:
http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59424,00.html?tw=wn_story_related (Thanks Wise Fawn)

Some of you are new and haven't seen how we took this site over and the Republican owners are using censorship and new rules to try to go to damage control as the truth hurts them.

It's just Republicans who are using blogging for political purposes and upset that free speech allows some to post adverse FACTS about their Candidates. But I guess Republicans have always been censors of free speech when it exposes their Candidates. Believe me, there is a news story developing in the blog world on the infiltration of politicial operatives to manipulate our views using this medium. Stay tuned.
on Mar 07, 2004
"Bush Puts Giant Sequoias On The Chopping Block"


This isn't about censorship. Freedom of speech does not allow you to lie.

You are implying that trees "older than America itself" are going to be cut, that the huge Sequoias are going to be made into lumber. Even the article you quote says that this is not the case. You ask people to believe a lot of far-fetched, paranoid stuff, and when you twist facts like this it just makes it harder and harder to believe you.
on Mar 14, 2004
you must be on drugs
on Mar 14, 2004

Wah, this is why people don't take you seriously. You just jump from one extreme, ill-thought out conclusion to the next.

A good chunk of the massive fires that California has seen in recent years would have been avoided if the "environmentalists" would have let loggers come in and thin the forests a little bit. Prior to human intervention, vast fires reguarly wiped out large chunks of the forests in North America.  This kept the woods in a natural state. But now, we put out those fires and the forests become thick.

If you actually care about the giant sequoias then you would be in favor of this program. Instead, you just use it as a blunt instrument to fool the gullible and weak minded into thinking that Bush is a bad man. It's lazy intellectualism.

on Mar 16, 2004
Brad how's this little rant then: First of all "I DON'T CALL YOU BRA"( I did a funny )[course you don't call me ana either].
Those trees have survived many a forest fire to achieve such heights. They are so tough and developed, they have an asbestos-like bark and the ability to treat it like sunburn.
Thinning those plants is not environmentalism, but is the consumption of our natural resources. You come froma people that believe in land ownership; dude they are taking your land and others' as well. This is YOUR'N and your children's property - sold.

Let's just put away our FACTS for a sec. He ain't a tryin to suyv them thar tres, bro'['dude' also considered for placement here] . You know it and I know it. Let's all come together Americans, and at least get a cut of the profits equal to a profiteer partner.

Rant ends here. Feel free to...email... ... ...
2 Pages1 2