Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NickSE who wrote (14534)	10/30/2003 7:46:00 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 793622

With at least 20 dead and 2,600 homes destroyed, the fires that have ravaged at least 625,000 acres in southern California may come much closer to containment today as the extraordinary efforts of 13,000 firefighters get an assist from the weather, including a very unusual chance of rain and even snow at the higher elevations tonight. The media will move on as soon as the fires diminish in their immediate threat to life and property, but sane people can only hope that the clean-up and rebuilding process is accompanied by a searching and thorough inquiry into the causes of the disaster --an undertaking that environmental activists will resist at every turn because a genuine inquiry will result in an indictment of almost every nostrum they hold dear. My WeeklyStandard.com article this morning, "Up in Smoke," is a first installment in what should be an outpouring of critiques of the federal policies which came to dominate Southern California land use during the Clinton years. One of the conclusions of any fair review of the past ten years: "The Bush administration, as in so many areas, inherited eight years of disastrous extremism dressed up as 'science'--described by Bruce Babbitt as 'walking lightly on the land.' Babbitt's tenure as Secretary of the Interior, seen through the smoke of California and the charred remains from Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota, is clearly the most damaging to the environment in the history of the department." The most outrageous action among political elites concerning the fires is the sudden abandonment of Democratic opposition to President Bush's "Healthy Forests Initiative." Helen Dewar's article in the Washington Post states that the Senate was "[w]hipped into action by the deadly wildfires that are ravaging Southern California," but that is simply dishonest. Democratic obstructionism was once again revealed to have cost Americans dearly, and the Democrats leading the obstructionism --especially California's Barbara Boxer-- fled the field. The "Senate" didn't change course. The Senate Democrats did. Dianne Feinstein cobbled together some face-saving amendments, and the bill passed by a vote of 97 to 1 after a delay of many months. If I was a burned out homeowner, or the family of a victim, I would be beyond outrage not only with the desperate hypocrisy of the left, but also with the media's willingness to allow the Senate Democrats to slip away without explaining why their opposition to forest thinning has evaporated this week. The new bill addresses only part of the problem, and House Republicans should demand that the original bill be kept free of the wishful thinking and ideological posturing of the environmental lobby. How many disasters does it take, after all, to expose these people and their fraudulent theories? The Endangered Species Act should be next up for thorough amendment --it is a disastrous and ineffective exercise in granting enormous power to incompetent federal bureaucrats that brings ever increasing hardships and little in the way of genuine conservation benefits. The GOP has got to realize that the public long ago woke up to the facts about the environmental movement's extremism on the issue of species protection. The party of TR can recover the legacy of genuine conservation, but not by refusing to expose lousy science as lousy science, and bureaucratic ineptitude as just that. The Party fears getting labeled as anti-environmental, but the disasters of the past few years are the backdrop against which serious reforms can be demanded and explained. Many in elite media will of course distort every attempt to recover a genuine conservation ethic that is now hostage to wild extremism of the left. Look at Howard Fineman's silly "Echoes of Vietnam Grow Louder" for a perfect example of the sort of anti-Bush agenda journalism that spews out from "journalists" grinding their axes as 2004 approaches. Or read the bald little attempt by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post to start a Boykin-like attack on Bush for the President speaking beneath "banners of the cross over each shoulder, one saying 'King of Kings' and the other 'Lord of Lords.'" Day after day the elites within media which are frozen into Howard Dean-like mindsets throw whatever they can at the President and the Administration, but the country has fundamentally changed. The elections of 2004 are setting up to be the most dramatic choice that the American electorate has faced since 1972, and not just on the war on terrorism, but on issues as diverse as the role of judges, environmental extremism, and the role of faith in public life. On every single issue I think the President has a healthy majority on his side, and on every issue he should push the disagreements into the open so that the voters get a clear understanding of the vast chasm between the parties. The 97 to 1 vote in the Senate to move the Healthy Forests bill forward is an admission that the Democrats know what such clarity means and fear it greatly. Republicans ought to pursue it at every turn, and especially in the aftermath of disasters like that in Southern California that are laid quite properly at the feet of the left. hughhewitt.com