But it's too late, thanks to Senator Tom Daschle, who is almost directly responsible for dozens of California dead.
Congress revised the regulations that govern the management of the millions of square miles of federal forest land in the United States, making it easier to thin brush and trees that often create wildfire conditions -- as seen recently in Southern California. Before these changes, environmental reviews and legal challenges could prevent logging and thinning for years (except in South Dakota), even though most responsible authorities recognized the need.
Congress approved legislation yesterday that lawmakers said would reduce the risk of wildfires in national forests by speeding removal of overgrown brush and diseased trees, especially near homes and towns. ...What's really interesting is that Senator Tom Daschle has opposed all such revision for years -- as a sop to environmentalists -- except for special legislation he slipped into a spending bill in 2002 that exempted his home state of South Dakota from the regulations.The measure would limit appeals and environmental reviews so forest-thinning can be completed within months rather than years. The combination of dry underbrush and legal opposition had turned some Western forests into tinderboxes, supporters of the bill said.
"Lawsuits and red tape have led to inaction, and inaction has led to millions of acres that are destined to burn so hot and move so fast that communities have no choice but to evacuate," said Rep. Richard W. Pombo, California Republican.
The fallout from this year's forest fires [Note: this was written in 2002, and is referring to fires in Nevada -- MW.] is accomplishing wonders -- such as the sight of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle running into the protective arms of the Republican-controlled Forest Service. Quick, someone get water to revive the Sierra Club.That was written in 2002... it's too bad Senator Daschle didn't exempt California as well, or we might not have had dozens killed and thousands of homes destroyed last month. So-called "environmentalism" kills people.Last week, Mr. Daschle slipped language into a spending bill that would exempt his home state of South Dakota from key environmental laws. "The fire danger in the Black Hills is high," said Smoky the Bear, er, Mr. Daschle, and this legislation will "avoid costly, time-consuming lawsuits" and "get the forest thinned and property protected."
Well, knock us over with a chainsaw. We are thrilled that the nation's top Democrat now agrees that environmentalist obstruction is behind today's Western fires. And far be it from us to question his motives. But a few uncharitable folks are pointing out that South Dakota Junior Senator Tim Johnson is fighting for his political life against GOP Congressman John Thune.
This spring Mr. Thune tried to insert a similar South Dakota cleanup measure into the farm bill -- hoping to pre-empt deadly fires. But Messrs. Daschle and Johnson, at the bidding of environmentalists, let it die. Now that fires are raging back home, however, Mr. Johnson is taking a political beating and so the pair are trying to convince voters it was their idea all along.
Michael,
If you want to claim that Daschle is responsible for killing a few dozen people, then would you also acknowledge that President Reagan's inaction on AIDS may have resulted in a 100,000 or more people dying?
Daschle's responsible as much as any of the others who voted against proper forest management but this has been a problem for decades. It takes much more than one year to clean out decades worth of surplus fuel.
Daschle could have had an honest about face in 2002 and there still would likely have been a bad 2003 fire season just like there's likely going to be continue in the next few years ahead for the same reason.
It's not the Daschle of 2002 that's responsible but the Daschle of 1995.
On the Reagan/AIDS blame issue, I do remember the 80s. If Reagan and the Republicans had had their way and AIDS had been treated as a simple public health menace, there would be a great number of live homosexuals today who, instead, are residing in cemeteries nationwide. There was a lot of political fighting over closing down gay bath houses, contact tracing, and other restraints on the normal public health machinery that our tax dollars pay for.
It might be true that public funding was lower because Reagan was a Republican, not a Democrat but the AIDS death toll on his watch was higher because of Democrat unwillingness to treat a disease as a disease instead of political persecution and sexual politics.
TML: Yes, it's a longer term problem, I just mentioned that article from 2002 because it's what I had handy. Daschle had taken the lead in obstructing smart forest management for a long time, not only then, and was blatantly hypocritical when it came to the forests in his own area.
Joel: My understanding of the AIDS situation matches TML's.
Plus, AIDS spreads by a rather behavior-dependent vector. There's not much individuals can do to reduce the risk of wildfire (other than not set one themselves), but there's quite a lot one can do to nearly eliminate the chance of getting AIDS.
That a single fire can spread to hundreds of thousands of acres is not the result of individual decisions among the people affected.
Micahel,
I tried earlier to think of a way to explain why you and I believe in a different Christ. Your answer on Reagan and AIDS is an adequate answer. The truth is that Reagan never supported doing much about AIDS, period. He didn't talk about it, he didn't advance any other solutions. He didn't promote education, he didn't warn. He pretended that the problem didn't exist.
Well, I wasn't really politically aware in the 1980s, so I can't speak much to the matter.
Michael,
I certainly don't place most of the blame on Reagan. There were irresponsible gay leaders who refused to support closing of gay bath houses, for instance. Many gays also refused to accept any attmepts to be educated about the disease. But I think a different course of action by the Reagan administration could have made a lot of difference in saving lives.
BTW, my comments on belief in Christ are not meant to challenge your faith or your salvation. Nor do I presume that I am right about all of my beliefs. Rather, I think even the most faithful Christians, whether on the right or left, "see but a poor reflection, as in a mirror."
You have a really cool blog, and I appreciate your contributions to dialog on important issues.
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoy it. I'm happy to have you contribute.