October 17, 2004
Why I Endorse John F. Kerry for President
Every four years We the People of the United States of America are called upon to choose our national leader, the man, or woman who will represent us on the world stage. Four years ago through Supreme Court intervention, George W. Bush became our 43th President. He did not come to the Office of the Presidency of the United States with a clear popular mandate from the We the People, and yet there he was, this vastly unqualified man who would be President.
My president has failed me, he has failed you, he has failed We the People! Over the course of the proceeding four years he has in my mind subverted the constitutional process that provides the foundation for our Republican form of governance. We the People have been neglected, We the People have been forgotten, and We the People of the United States have been ill-served by this President and his ideological administration run amuck.
George Bush is woefully unqualified to assume the mantel of the leader of the free world, and his actions have shown his ineptitude for the position. He is not an overly intelligent man, nor is he thoughtful, or imbibed with wisdom or vision, all qualities needed to be a successful President who moves the nation forward with clarity and purpose. George Bush has failed this simple test repeatedly, in that;
He has failed to lead with vision, intellect, reflective thought, common sense, and within the bounds of our Constitutional Republic.
He promised to bring honesty and integrity to the back the White House, but he has instead cloaked the People’s house in secretly and perpetrated well documented duplicity upon the American people.
He promised to conduct American foreign policy with humility and the treat our allies with respect and dignity, but instead has isolated the United States by his unilateral policies and alienated our allies with his arrogant posturing and general lack of international understanding.
He has violated the trust of the American people and the world by breaking a treaty confirmed with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, and sought to elevate the United States above other nations by turning his back on the U.N. and setting aside other negotiated agreements meant to bring civility to the world.
He seeks to quiet the dissenting voice of Americans by systematically, and willfully denying access to his presence of any American who might hold views contrary to his own, using decidedly undemocratic tactics such as labeling supports of John Kerry subversive and threats to the President, and having such people arrested if they refuse to relinquish their Constitutional right to free political speech.
His lack of leadership, refusal to seek advice from any person outside his very narrowly defined inner circle, his choice to ignore the admonishments and to heed the advice of the outgoing Clinton administration on matters of terrorism, his refusal to listen to his own counter-terrorism chief, and his single-minded fanatical fixation on Iraq, led to the disaster of 9/11, and the murder of almost 3000 innocent people.
He has taken our nation to war with a sovereign nation for reasons shown to be false or otherwise misleading, and in the process indirectly caused the deaths of over 1080 American soldiers (over 7000 wounded), and countless Iraqi men, women, and children.
He compromised the War on Terrorism and allowed Usama bin Laden to escape American and world justice, by going to war in Iraq, a nation that did not constitute a clear and present danger to the security of the United States; meanwhile those countries that do pose a threat, Iran and North Korea are allowed to develop nuclear weapons unhindered by American scrutiny or pressure.
He has irresponsibly abandoned all fiscal reason by pushing through the Republican led Congress five tax cuts, creating the largest budget deficit in the history of our nation, thrusting upon the shoulders of our children a burden that is rightfully our generations’ to bear.
He has forsaken the environment in an ill conceived plan to fatten the coffers of the energy concerns in this nation without regard to the American people, and he has recklessly allowed elements known to be harmful to human health to once again proliferate our air and water.
He has sent our military to war unprepared and ill-equipped, to conduct all phases of a military action in Iraq, and refuses, even after ample evidence has shown the folly of his present course, to bolster their numbers, clinging unwisely to a position sure to lead to disaster and Civil War in Iraq, thereby un-stabilizing the entire region, vacating his stated goals of bringing democracy to Arab states.
He has failed to bring to the Congress a viable coherent energy policy to begin to end the nation’s dependence on foreign sources of energy; this failure has led to greater dependence on foreign source of energy at a time when America should be turning to self-reliance.
He has failed to work in a bi-partisan manner with Democratic Party members in Congress, as he pledged he would do during his run for the Office of President, resulting in a misrepresentation of all of the people before the Congress.
He has introduced religion into the policy of the United States Government, causing tax monies to be diverted from programs after Congress refused to enact his faith based initiative program, circumventing the Constitutional budgeting process, and he seeks to amend our constitution so that gay and lesbian Americans cannot marry, violating the 14th Amendment, and sewing discrimination against a group of people once more into the fabric of our governing principles.
He has mismanaged the nation’s economy, ignoring and even praising the outsourcing of core American jobs to overseas concerns, ignoring the plight of the middle & lower-class American worker, and failing the leadership test once more by refusing to address the issues that would help keep American jobs in America, and he has done nothing to stem the rising tide of imports, pressure China to float it currency on the world market, and check the slide of the dollar against other world currencies.
He has ignored the heath and welfare of senior citizens and the disabled by failing to pass a credible, fair, and truly usable Prescription Drug Plan, refusing to allow Medicare to negotiate for reduced cost of prescription drugs, despite the fact that the Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affair already do so and realize substantial savings.
He has failed to put forth a Health Care Plan that would begin to address the swelling numbers of uninsured across America, at the very time America business of all sizes are asking their employees to share more of the burden on the increasing cost of health insurance, leaving all Americans vulnerable to the resurgence of diseases thought long tamed.
He has failed to address all of the reasons health care costs continue to rise in America; e.g. he clings stubbornly to the notion that litigate alone accounts for the sky-rocketing cost of mal-practice insurance, despite the evidence that insurance companies are attempting to increase revenues lost playing the stock market by increasing mal-practice premiums.
The President’s failure of leadership, vision, and constitutional perception, coupled with his lack of a real moral center based on sound Christian Principles, has led me to this place. I cannot abide a President who lacks an even basic understanding of the world in which we live, and relies on beliefs, rather than intellectual curiosity to inform his life-altering decisions. I cannot abide a President whom I can out-think at every turn; who slaughters our language whenever he speaks; who has earned the disdain of the world by his reckless and arrogant pursuit of neo-conservative policies no matter how ill-advised; who is controlled by those who have not the best interests of We the People at the forefront of their every action.
I am ever mindful of the Preamble to our great Constitution that begins with We the People of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect Union...under this President we have not pursued a more perfect Union, our nation is not a better place because he is our President, indeed it is worse, our lives are not better, our cities not safer, our children’s futures not assured, our liberties not protected, our standing in the world not more respected. And for underlying reasons, I cannot and will not support George W. Bush for reelection. I will vote for a change, I will vote for an intellectual, I will vote for a man who understands and respects the constitutional principles that form the foundation of our society, I will vote for a man who questions, a man with vision and wisdom, and a path that will (hopefully) take America to a brighter tomorrow infused with the light of promise that We the People can once more grasp the American dream without trepidation that tomorrow it might be snatched away at a whim. I will vote for a man with common sense, decency, moral character, and a record of unwavering public service to his country, who truly asked not what his country could do for him, but what he could do for his country. I will vote for John Kerry.
Posted by V. Edward Martin at October 17, 2004 06:05 PMyou are saying the reasons why you are not voting for george bush but not why you are voting for kerry, i mean you are defending kerry by attacking bush, and don’t get me wrong i don’t like bush one bit but i think if you are gonna say why you like kerry, name the qualities of kerry not mention the flaws on bush
Posted by: monica at October 17, 2004 06:23 PMSounds more like why you won’t vote for Bush.
V said: “I will vote for a man with common sense, decency, moral character, and a record of unwavering public service to his country, who truly asked not what his country could do for him, but what he could do for his country. I will vote for John Kerry.”
Are you sure that you have picked the right person? We do not know everything there is to know about John Kerry.
‘who truly asked not what his country could do for him, but what he could do for his country’?
For one, he will not sign the form to release his military records that he said he would. It was a big issue for Bush. It is a big issue for Kerry, in that, he used his service as a main reason for qualifying to lead our country.
The only reason I can think, that he won’t have these records released, is that he has something to hide. He should be proud to show his records. Why isn’t he?
Unwavering public service?
He seems to have changed positions when it comes to Unions and managed to get them to endorse him. What has he suddenly promised them? How have these Unions gone from disliking Kerry to endorsing him?
He tried to take tenur away from teachers and now they endorse him? Has he now promised not to do that?
Moral character?
In a man that said it was right to remove Saddam Hussein and now says he didn’t mean it that way? When he was running for the nomination he started out in full support of the War in Iraq.
He is against abortion but all for destroying embryos. Does he not know what an abortion does?
Common Sense?
Haven’t seen it in the ‘way he talks about things’.
Well, V. Edward, you win this week’s award for the longest and most detailed non-explanation. It should have been titled Why I’m Not Endorsing George W. Bush for President.
Your points have been argued here for months, though usually in the blue column. I may have missed the posts where you actually planned to vote for Bush, but I doubt that this one represents any change in sentiment.
At least this time you didn’t use the word puppet.
Posted by: NOTOTH at October 17, 2004 08:16 PMI guess I’m still scratching my head wondering why you are endorsing Kerry for president? I think you might have saved everyone a lot of time and typed out ‘Because I hate George Bush and Kerry has the only chance to get him out of office’.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2004 08:23 PMRhinehold—
Yes and the Founding Fathers could have saved everyone the bother of the Declaration of Independence and just said we quite the British! As for my reasons for voting for Kerry read the article…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at October 17, 2004 08:40 PMSo, I guess you don’t like Bush. You make a lot of valid points, but like many valid points made by others, they are based on hindsight. I won’t to take the space to address every one. One thing I noticed (like others). You don’t like Bush, but you have nothing specifically good to say about Kerry. The praise you heap on him at the end could be about anyone without a specific record to run on. Besides that, let me get the high points.
Your 9/11-point, for example, implies the Clinton folks had a plan that Bush just ignored. Why was there never any evidence of this plan being implemented? Hindsight highlights only the correct insights.
Allowing OBL to escape? No reason to believe this at all. Tommy Franks pointed out the U.S. Special Forces were actively working with the Afghans in Tora Bora when Osama slipped away. He goes on to say that it was not possible to make this a strictly U.S. mission and if we had tried we may have lost the whole game, plus a lot of young Americans – and still not caught the big bad guy.
Environment – it depends on whether you want cleaner air and water or feel good about talking about them. Bush’s changes on power plants will encourage upgrades that will mean the use of cleaner technology. We could continue to punish power plants into using the old stuff and feel virtuous, but we would have less energy and dirtier air. Bush’s new requirements for off road diesel is truly important, although not something most people will easily notice. The healthy forest initiative is good news to anyone who lives or travels in the west. (What kind of stupid policy allows beetles to kill the ponderosa pines and then won’t allow anyone to clean them out? That was the Clinton policy. It was great in theory but it is no surprise they start disastrous fires.) Kyoto is the big dog. Clinton signed it on almost the last day of his presidency to give Bush a hard time and it worked. Clinton never tried to get the Senate to ratify the treaty because he knew they wouldn’t. But he did make it Bush’s (and America’s) problem. It was nasty, but it was Clinton politics.
Drug plan – Bush passed a bipartisan plan that Kerry says is too expensive. What would Kerry do?
Economy – Unemployment is 5.4% - lower than when Clinton bragged about his achievements in 1996. Productivity is up. The dot.com bubble burst in 2000 – before Bush took office. He managed to work through the mess he inherited and now things are better.
You can vote for whomever you please, but I did think that this middle column was supposed to be for third party. With some notable exceptions, it has been Democrat light. Now it is becoming just Democrat.
VEM, first the New York Times endorsing Kerry and now you? I’m 0-2 with my predictions! Damn.
Now I’ll be 0-4 if Stephen and Bert endorse him too.
Posted by: Martin at October 17, 2004 09:35 PMWe the People are wondering what this is doing in the Third Party section.
We the People aren’t buying the “He’s not George Bush.” non-arguement.
Posted by: Alan Smithee at October 17, 2004 10:06 PMAlan—
Because although this is the third party column we have to vote for someone! it is after all our civic duty.
Ralph is out, to wacky, George is out, too stupid and arrogant, the leaves Kerry. Any more questions?
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at October 17, 2004 10:15 PMMartin—
At least I know I’m in good company…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at October 17, 2004 10:18 PMWell, I’m not complaining. At least nobody has endorsed Kerry in the red column.
My predictions are off so far, but I’m counting on the big Watchblog shocker yet to come: David Remer’s endorsement of Bush. Stay tuned.
Posted by: Martin at October 17, 2004 10:42 PMU.N. Blood Money: New Revelations
Kerry spent the first few months bashing Bush about not going back to the UN like he said Bush should have done.
Has he since backed off? We don’t hear much about it anymore.
During the debate he said ‘the sanctions were working’. Were they? Were they working the way they were intended to work?
Kerry supported sanctions. Sanctions were hurting the people of Iraq. Oil for Food was born. It seems it was helping Saddam a whole lot more than the people of Iraq.
Going to the UN was useless. We know that now thanks to the Oil for Food scandal showing the corruption. Showing France was willing to veto any U.S. attempts to remove Saddam Hussein and keep him in power.
Poland was involved in selling weapons to Iraq but arrested the people involved and joined the U.S. led Coalition.
In hindsight, does Kerry still believe going back to the UN, at that time, was the right thing to do?
Hindsight works against Kerry if you really think about it.
The UN was not doing it’s job when it came to Saddam Hussein.
Kerry said that removing Saddam was the ‘right thing to do’ and he ‘supported going back to the UN because the sanctions were working’.
It appears that Kerry was wrong. I guess he doesn’t have to admit it though.
It’s bad enough Bush had the corruption in the UN working against him, but Kerry and the Democrats? just to gain more political power in our country?
Posted by: bugcrazy at October 17, 2004 11:03 PMI realize this is a difficult concept for those in the Republican aisle to understand, but I’ll explain it anyway.
There are two viable candidates for president. One of them isn’t the guy who has screwed things up. His name is John Kerry.
V.Edward Martin’s post makes sense to most people who can grasp this concept. All others vote for one of the losers.
Posted by: Greg at October 17, 2004 11:16 PMKerry is wrong.
Going back to the UN was NOT the solution.
Supporting our President for NOT going back to the UN is the RIGHT thing to do.
Oil for Food is being proven to be one of the biggest scandals in history and the UN was NOT doing it’s job concerning Saddam Hussein.
How can anyone expect that any President at the time would have been able to work with the countries working to help Saddam Hussein get all sanctions lifted?
How can anyone believe that a Kerry or Gore would not have let the sanctions be lifted?
Especially if France requested it.
The scandal would still be going on if the sanctions were in place.
The countries helping Saddam would still be selling him weapons. Weapons to shoot down our airplanes.
How does that make Kerry a viable candidate? It doesn’t.
It would have made Saddam more dangerous.
Is that what you Kerry supporters prefer?
Well like all good elections this one comes down between to candidates that have shown they have the largest number of people following them. Now, we can down the list issue by issue, but that is not how America votes. We elect or select the person we think can do the best job based on what they have said and done. You know TRUTH, JUSTICE, and the AMERICAN WAY.
For that reason this election has boiled down to one simple question for all Americans to answer come November 2, 2004. Will “We the People” decide to stay the course and hold our President accountable for standing up to the TRUTH. JUSTICE, and AMERICAN WAY or will we change direction and follow a leader that has clearly stated that we no longer have to uphold an “International TRUTH TEST” which will allow any country or group to attack anybody based solely on what they think is right?
For this simple reason and the future of our country I must vioce my vote for Kerry!
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 18, 2004 12:02 AMI am ever mindful of the Preamble to our great Constitution that begins with We the People of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect Union…under this President we have not pursued a more perfect Union
That brought a flashback of the last debate. Kerry & Bush were asked what they would do to unite the country. Kerry said,
We have to change that. And as president, I am committed to changing that. I don’t care if the idea comes from the other side or this side. I think we have to come together and work to change it.And if Americans trust me with the presidency, I can pledge to you, we will have the most significant effort, openly — not secret meetings in the White House with special interests, not ideologically driven efforts to push people aside — but a genuine effort to try to restore America’s hope and possibilities by bringing people together.
And one of the ways we’re going to do it is, I’m going to work with my friend, John McCain, to further campaign finance reform so we get these incredible amounts of money out of the system and open it up to average people, so America is really represented by the people who make up America.
Then Bush just shrugged his shoulders and said,
My biggest disappointment in Washington is how partisan the town is… Washington is a tough town.We’re just in a period — we’ve got to work to bring it — my opponent keeps mentioning John McCain, and I’m glad he did. John McCain is for me for president because he understands I have the right view in winning the war on terror and that my plan will succeed in Iraq. And my opponent has got a plan of retreat and defeat in Iraq.
What a dud.
Ralph is out, to wacky, George is out, too stupid and arrogant, the leaves Kerry. Any more questions?
Posted by V. Edward Martin at October 17, 2004 10:15 PM
Yeah. Where can I get Chinese take-out in Kansas City at 2am?
John is out, too Republican. George is out, for reasons that are all-too-obvious. That leaves Ralph, Michael, David and a lot more.
Or you can just vote Republicrat and go back to sleep for another four years. Take your pick.
Posted by: Alan Smithee at October 18, 2004 05:55 AMV.Edward Martin’s post makes sense to most people who can grasp this concept. All others vote for one of the losers.
Just because a specific party has never won the White House doesn’t mean they can’t. Think how different the country would be today if, in 1860, voters said, “Only the Whigs and the Democrats have a chance at the presidency. This ‘Abe Lincoln’ guy is just another whacko third-party candidate.”
Of course, Abe’s not running for president this year, and none of the choices I’ve seen so far (George, John, Ralph, Michael, David, etc.) are very appealing. At times like these, I really wish we had a “None of the Above” option on the ballot. I want to be counted as someone who is willing to go vote, but who won’t vote for any of those guys. Maybe I should just vote for myself.
Environment – it depends on whether you want cleaner air and water or feel good about talking about them. …The healthy forest initiative is good news to anyone who lives or travels in the west.
Whoa, Jack. I can’t let this one go by.
Look at what environmental organizations say about W. Sierra Club’s rundown of the Clear Skies initiative says “why is the Administration bragging about a plan that will actually result in more pollution than if we simply enforced the existing Clean Air Act?” The rundown of the Healthy Forests Initiative says the “disconnect between what the administration says and what science says about logging and fire reveals the administration’s true goal which is … give logging companies virtually free access to our National Forests.”
Bush got an F from the League of Conservation Voters, the first president ever to be so honored. The LCV endorsed Kerry early in the primary process. John Kerry is endorsed by the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, and the National Parks & Conservation Association. I don’t know of any legit environmental organization that endorsed Bush.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 18, 2004 08:50 AMWell said, V. Edward. When I look at Bush’s presidency I see the stereotype of a Republican: the restriction of civil rights and the expansion of corporate rights; destruction of the environment in the name of jobs; tax cuts to the rich; and best of all, warmongering.
I can certainly see why Donald Trump might vote for Bush; I can’t at all see why any average person would want to — and that’s why Bush is diverting every bit of attention he can away from our backyards and toward the specter of terrorism. George W. is screwing us, and I for one don’t enjoy the sensation.
Oh, and Jack? The Healthy Forests Initiative? “Cut down the trees so they don’t burn.” Yeah, great plan. The whole reason we have forest fires is because we *($*ed up the forests to begin with by clear-cutting them.
Posted by: Alejo at October 18, 2004 10:03 AMHave any of you actually worked in the logging industry or for a National Park or Forestry Service?
Posted by: bugcrazy at October 18, 2004 10:13 AMBugcrazy —
Are you saying that’s what’s necessary to understanding an issue? So I can’t have an informed opinion on nuclear power unless I’ve worked in a plant?
Posted by: Alejo at October 18, 2004 10:28 AMYeah, Alejo. That Healthy Forect Initiative was sold by Bush as a way to keep down forest fires near populated areas by clearing dead trees and brush.
The first thing the lumber companies (now subsidized by federal dollars) did was head to the middle of the Sierras to cut down 330 million board feet of valuable old growth trees. Fires in populated areas broke out soon after.
VEM
Yes, you will be voting for a change. But you will also be voting for an elitist who is an intellectual snob and totally out of touch with the average citizen.
He does not understand and he sure as hell does not respect the constitutional principles that form the foundation of our “AMERICAN” society.
If you truely wish to vote for such a person, you will not find it in either of the two current candidates.
I majored in forestry as an undergraduate (although I never went into the field. I love trees and have planted hundreds of trees all over the world (usually at my own expense). I drive only about once a week, ride my bike to work in the summer and take the metro in the winter. I have given thousands of dollars to the Nature Conservancy, but cannot be accepted as an environmentalist because I am not a leftist and I believe in using resources. Most mainstream environmental organization trend left. Their mindset is a man against nature paradigm.
The healthy forest initiative makes sense. I have walked through forests of ponderosa pines killed by bark beetles. Sometimes you can actually hear the beetles chewing away. The dead trunks dry in the hot sun, just waiting for a spark. I asked the ranger why they didn’t do something to clean up the mess. She told me that the beetles were native and given time everything would balance. Great answer, if you plan to live 10,000 years and don’t need to use the land. I really don’t think we can afford this Olympian perspective. Nature is never in balance and as long as people live in this world we don’t have the option of pretending we are not part of the system. We can work with nature or against it, but we don’t have a zero option. What is natural anyway? 10K years ago my native state of Wisconsin was under a mile of ice. Now its is not. Which is the natural state for us to maintain?
My main experience with the environment is from E. Europe, where I saw the environmental damage wrought by Communism. I have traveled across the U.S. five times and never saw anything as bad as the average E. European pollution levels. With the fall of Communism, the environment became cleaner very rapidly. Mostly this was the result of free market capitalism. Polluting plants are inefficient. When forced to compete, the big smoky plants had to cut back or shut down. Those little cars they all drove made more pollution than a any SUV, proving that you can be frugal and uncomfortable and a major polluter all at the same time. I also saw how truly resilient nature could be. Given any chance at all, it comes back. All this I saw first hand, but I have never seen any major environmental group credit the free market for what is certainly the greatest environmental success of the decade. Instead, now that they are allowed to measure and criticize, we hear about how bad things are. The same MO is followed in the U.S.
Many people don’t want to do the simple things that could clean things faster. Air pollution, for example. A new car makes only about 1/25 as much pollution as a car made in 1975 and the ratio is much worse if the old car is not maintained well. Solution: get all the old cars off the road. A new SUV is a lot more benign than an old VW. President Bush’s policy toward power plants is similar. Old plants make a lot of pollution. Get rid of them and build new ones that make a lot less. Unfortunately regulations have worked against this solution. Making it hard to build new plants means old ones keep working and old ones are dirtier.
The whole reason we have forest fires is because we *($*ed up the forests to begin with by clear-cutting them.
Clear cutting a forest removes all the trees. How can a forest that has no trees result in a forest fire?? Ya might wanna rethink your logic on that.
It should be clear to everyone that a certain amount of forestation (ie, cutting trees) is required to remove fuel that helps forest fires grow. Cut down too many trees, and you have environmental problems.
The point is that taking the extreme side of either position results in problems. So instead of railing against the obvious, how about a solution that compromises in the middle. Figure out a reasonable range of how many trees can be cut without doing environmental damage.
Oh, and for all you that dont want trees cut—-take a look in your basement or attic, and tell me whether the joists are wood or steel. Then re-examine your position.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 18, 2004 11:15 AMjack —
I guess that is the difference between the left and the right: The left thinks “Olympian” — meaning, beyond tomorrow — and the right thinks “now.” The problem with “now” is that we’ve already seen the effects of clear-cutting and logging old growth forest. As with many Bush plans (i.e., No Child Left Behind), the Healthy Forest Initiative does make sense. The problem is that the implementation bears no resemblance to the plan itself. Bush says one thing and does another quite frequently, and all of those sleights of hand seem to benefit his close friends.
Competition equals efficiency equals cleaner air? Well, maybe. By-products and waste material like mercury aren’t affected by competition, but the way they’re disposed of is. Capitalism is not the final answer.
Posted by: Alejo at October 18, 2004 11:16 AMjbod —
See, here’s the thing: Trees grow again after you cut them. It’s sort of a nature thing. When we cut down all of the tall, old trees that had previously shaded out underbrush (which is a large contributor to forest fires), lot sof scrub trees and brush grow up, and that’s a lot of what burns. The reason the “old growth” forest is still there — what’s left of it, what hasn’t been cut down — is because it’s not so susceptible to forest fires.
And the argument that without this bill we’d have no lumber is nonsense. No one is suggesting we stop raising or using lumber. We just don’t support a bill that supposedly makes healthy forests by expanding logging.
Jack is right that there are problems, like bark beetles and wood borers, that create “dead zones” which are forest fire problems. We need to clear THAT lumber, not the healthy trees.
Posted by: Alejo at October 18, 2004 11:25 AMAlejo,
What I am trying to point out is that many people grasp onto ideas from the side they want to fight for and don’t bother to listen to anything the other side has to say.
Do you actually know some of the reasons for ‘clear cutting’ or are you just assuming it is always because some lumber company wants to make a huge profit and does not care about the environment?
Do you know what Timber Harvesting is or do you just think it is a term used to be able to cut down trees?
Do you know what ‘BMP’ stands for and that it is a requirement when working timber on Federal and State land?
Did you know that the foresters responsible for the timber on government land are in charge of deciding what trees will be cut, how they will be cut, and what procedures need to be implemented to make sure the forest stays healthy? That the timber buyers are then required to follow these rules in order to purchase and harvest the timber?
Did you know that even today the purchase of timber on government ground sometimes requires the use of horses for harvesting?
Did you know that the majority of Timber Harvesters have understood for a long time that they had to be smart when harvesting timber or they would have worked themselves right out of a job? Tree Harvesters care about the land and environment.
Did you know that the people in the timber industry are not the only ones who have jobs because of timber harvesting?
I have heard the arguements on both sides. In person. When people on both sides work together everyone wins.
Posted by: bugcrazy at October 18, 2004 11:35 AMAlejo:
Hence, why I said that “instead of railing against the obvious, how about a solution that compromises in the middle. Figure out a reasonable range of how many trees can be cut without doing environmental damage.”
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 18, 2004 11:36 AMActually it is better for the woods to get thined out by man as long as we follow the natural rythem of the forest. Mother Nature, herselve thins out those trees every year by allowing some trees to die and fall while others grow.
The major problem that our timber comanpies are facing is improper equipment for selected cutting. By having been rigged for clear cutting for the last few decades, most companies lack the knowledge, training, and equipment to take out one or two trees and leave the rest standing. Additionally, we need to find a good way to clear out the natural underbrush without destoring habitats.
Posted by: Henry schlatman at October 18, 2004 12:21 PMAlejo
Olympian perspective does not necessarily imply a long-term point of view. It only means that you don’t take into account some of the real day-to-day problems. Bugcrazy seems to know something about forestry. I find that most urban environmentalists do not. They seem to think you should just leave things alone (Olympian perspective). The trouble is, you can’t. A forest is a living, evolving thing. It will change not matter what you do.
Depending on the species composition, some “old growth” is not as old as you think and left alone it will be a lot different. It is possible to maintain any proportion of old growth and still harvest trees as long as you understand that the forest is more than the trees.
Forests have not been “natural” for thousands of years. Native Americans regularly burned forests to increase desirable game species. This could be a destructive form of clear cutting. Clear cutting is sometimes necessary. Some species, such as Douglas fir will not grow in the shade of other trees. The results of clear cutting may not be attractive initially, but there is nothing more attractive or natural than a young forest about 25 years old. Some of our forests today result from well-intentioned misguided preservation policies of the past. Lodge pole and ponderosa pine in some parts of the west are too close together because the forest was “left alone” and smoky the bear prevented forest fires. These trees should be thinned. The USG can either pay someone to do this and not use the timber, or get someone to pay to do it and get the timber. Or you can burn some of the timber where it stands. As Joe points out, timber has to come from somewhere. It is pretty silly to pay someone to do something they would pay to do. Wise use of our resources does not mean destroying them, but it also does not mean keeping our hands off. The conservation movement understood this. The environmental movement took a wrong turn. We have to bring it back into balance.
Posted by: jack at October 18, 2004 12:24 PMKcTim—
What exactly is an elitist and an intellectual snob? Does a person who uses their mind for something other then drinking beer and reciting sport static’s an elitist and an intellectual snob? Should Kerry have “dumbed” himself down during the debates?
And how is he totally out of touch with the average citizen? He is after all a Senator and has been for the last 20 years. He displayed a commanding grasp of what is affecting the average American, far more then Bush did or ever will.
And how does he not understand or respect constitutional principles? Did he demonstrate that when he answered that he would not use his religious beliefs to formulate policy?
From a concerned Brit.
All this criticism of “I will vote for Kerry because he is not Bush”?
Sounds like a perfectly valid reason to me, after all, after the exposure of the WMD myth most of the reasoning for the illegal war on Iraq seems to be that getting rid of Saddam was justification enough. No alternative to Saddam was ever proposed or evaluated to my knowledge, but his removal was oh so vital.
If you can say “anyone but Saddam”, why criticise the notion that “Anyone but Bush” is a valid criteria in deciding how to vote.
Before any of you launch into the inevitable ‘keep your nose out of our affairs Limey’ rhetoric I should point out that my spouse is American and I have been resident in Ohio in the past. I hope that Kerry wins so I may consider moving my family back to what I believe is the greatest country in the world, (in the past I would have said greatest democracy in the world but until Afghanistan is allowed electoral inspectors in to justify this claim I will remain resolutely sceptical)
Anyhow I am enjoying this election from a distance, as I am sure there are many more twists and turns to come over the next 15 days (hopefully not beyond) and only regret that we in the UK lack a credible alternative to phoney Tony Bliar.
Posted by: macthegooner at October 18, 2004 12:32 PMI will grant everyone that I do not have comprehensive knowledge of how forests work, or how timber companies decide which trees to cut. Will you also grant me that we often proceed with “helping nature” and then find out we don’t know as much about how things work as we thought we did? It seems to me every time we come up with a grand scheme to help the process, even when motives are pure, that there’s some variable, some factor, that we couldn’t account for and we end up making a worse mess than had we left it alone.
I don’t see logging companies as inherently bad, nor do I oppose logging categorically. But as William Cohen linked to, this initiative is not exactly turning out as promised, just like so many of Bush’s other plans. There is a balance that can be struck between man’s needs now and his needs in the future. I just don’t believe Bush sees the same future I do.
Posted by: Alejo at October 18, 2004 12:35 PMVEM
Elitist- The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
Please do not tell me that you are so partisan that you actually believe kerry does not think he is better than the average American.
You also have seemed to have mistaken my criticism for kerry to mean that I support Bush. I do not. As of right now, I will vote agaainst kerry because I believe his views will harm this once great country more so than Bush’s views.
“How is he totally out of touch with the average citizen?”
- Since when does anybody wealthy, who has never been “average” have any clue about what our lives are like. To worry about eating and the etc…? The only thing he cares about for the middle and lower classes are votes.
Constitutional principles eh?
I have yet to hear that he sponsored legislation to end the Patriot Acts. These violate the Constitution in many ways. He is anti-2nd Amendment. He favors raising taxes instead of cutting useless programs, which over taxes the populace.
I must have also missed it when Bush said he would use his religious beliefs to formulate policy. Sorry bout that.
Instead of defending kerry at all costs and thinking anyone who disagrees with the clown must be a Bush supporter, maybe you should take off your own partisan blinders and have a clear look. Bush and kerry are not the answer, that is what this column should be used for. Sorry
Posted by: kctim at October 18, 2004 02:21 PMMacthegooner
Glad to have you in American cyberspace. I think we all welcome your overseas perspective. As for Tony Blair, personally he has my undying gratitude. You may not like him (or his connection with George Bush) but I think he proved again that the UK is a friend to America. I also believe that even Americans who don’t like or agree with George Bush are still grateful to Tony Blair for standing with us after 9/11.
Alejo
We don’t understand the forests perfectly, but we do have many years of experience in forestry. I think we should apply that. I also think we agree on that point. The system applied in the 1990s was not working. I am not sure the healthy forests will work better, but I don’t think it will be worse than watching the west burn.
Jack —
We should definitely use what we know. We just need to keep in mind what we DON’T know, and from what I’m reading the HFI is not taking that into account.
Why are we looking at it as, the HFI, our 90’s perspective, or nothing at all? Is there no other alternative? I don’t want people to lose their houses but I also don’t want to live in a country that ends up looking like Iraq.
Posted by: Alejo at October 18, 2004 04:08 PMKcTim—
I do not get the feeling from Kerry that he looks down his nose at the average American, far from it. When he speaks I believe it is from his heart. And when has Kerry ever given any indication that he thought he should get special treatment because of his wealth or intellect? Is this the way he makes you feel when he speaks about issues?
I made no assumptions about your voting choices whatsoever. It is unfortunate that you cannot see the harm Bush has done to the nation, and what four more years of his brand of democracy will do to our Republic. My only hope is that if he elected to four more years in office he will govern more wisely, but something tells me that will not be the case. A man who cannot or will not admit his mistakes cannot grow, learn, or evolve into a better and wiser person.
You are making certain assumptions about Kerry because he is well-to-do. Admittedly, Kerry was born into wealth and has never known the hardship that average lower class Americans have to endure. But that does not mean that he cannot understand their plight that he cannot empathize and wish to help. I believe his when he says he wants to help all Americans; if he proves me wrong once in office, then my faith in his inherent goodness would have been misplaced. But let us not forget, Bush was born into wealth as well, and is by any measure a wealth man. By your definition, Bush would know or care nothing for the plight of the “Average American.” What then make him the better man?
The Federal Courts have recently struck down many of the most odious provisions of the USA Patriot Act as unconstitutional. What need is there for Kerry—who voted for the act—to sponsor legislation to end it, or reverse it, especially when many of it provisions are due to expire soon? And what have (perceived) high taxes have to do with Constitutional principles?
Bush’s religious beliefs formulating policy: Faith-based intuitive programs; anti-abortion Amendment; proposed constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriages; limited support for stem-cell research, support for school prayer; in favor of rolling back Roe v. Wade.
This column should be used to voice opinions…there are no viable third-party candidates from which to choose, or perhaps I would vote for one fo them. Ralph Nader is too far out there to give serious consideration to. So who is left? Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bush is too arrogant and stupid for me to vote for with a clear conscience, so that leaves Kerry.
Jack -
I’m sure you love trees, and I respect your opinion. But it’s obviously biased. I don’t know squat about forestry, but there are organization that do know, and care, and take the effort to inform voters what they think. The Sierra Club and League of Conservation voters are examples and Jack, they are not partisan - they support Republicans all the time.
I’ve been a Sierra member for a long time, and I haven’t seen seen them this worked up for at least 10 years. They are completely slamming both of Bush’s initiatives as corporate giveaways - and they are a moderate environmental group. Come on, here’s a sample quote:
Using the hype of the 2002 fire season, the Bush administration proposed a series of drastic administrative changes to the way our National Forests are managed. Combined, these proposals will give free reign to the timber industry across National Forests under the guise of “fuel reduction.” The President’s ill-named “Healthy Forests Initiative” will do little to protect communities and homes from forest fires, instead this sweeping initiative is concentrated on decreasing public involvement, reducing environmental protection and increasing access to our National Forests and other federal lands for timber companies…the President’s plan would promote logging of large, commercially valuable trees miles from at-risk communities. When the plan met with widespread public skepticism and Congress adjourned in late 2002 without passing Bush’s legislation, the President decided to act by decree, pushing parts of his plan through administratively. The administration then began a series of new National Forest management proposals to limit the analysis of environmental impacts, repeal the ability of the public to appeal bad projects and increase the degradation of wild forests. Each proposal will increase harm to forest habitat and wildlife; together these proposals will turn scientific forest management back 40 years.
Saying “this initiative is not exactly turning out as promised” is like saying that “Iraq is not yet an attractive tourist destination.”
Jack, instead of giving us your own views on forest management, informed though they may be, can you point to any non-partisan site, any legit environmental group, any one that we can objectively determine to be both informed about the issue and not on the RNC payroll, that actually thinks the Healthy Forest initiative and the Clean Air initiatives are good for the environment? Cause I could easily find a dozen that think think they are disasterous.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 18, 2004 05:20 PMVEM
“It is unfortunate that you cannot see the harm Bush has done to the nation, and what four more years of his brand of democracy will do to our Republic.”
- Sir, I do see all the harm Bush has done and I can also see what four more yearswill bring. I just happen to think that kerry will be worse.
Yes, Bush is also from the northeast, and I believe he too looks down upon us average folks with disdain, just like kerry.
Patriot Acts- some fed. courts may have ruled against them, but they are still being enforced. Leading the way with legislation to end them would only strengthen kerry.
Will kerry end faith based initiatives?
You don’t have to be religious to know murdering babies is wrong.
I thought the Amendment was supposed to protect traditional marriage. I didnt know it specifically said that gays could not be united.
School prayer? When did Bush say he wanted to institute prayer in school?
For William Cohen
I am not basing my opinion on testimonials from others. But along those lines, I know that most landowners and even liberal congressmen from the west supported the healthy forest initiative. I know that the Nature Conservancy, no matter their public position, is executing programs on its land that are similar to the healthy forest initiatives. My own observation of forests tells me that something needs to be done. I don’t think anyone knows exactly how the healthy forest initiative will work, but the system now is broken. The biggest problem has been that various groups can tie anything in litigation for a very long time. We need something else.
I respect the Sierra Club and many other organizations, but I think that there has been a change in their orientation. Environmentalism was once about conservation and wise use of resources. Now the rhetoric at least is man versus nature. The goal is often to keep people away, build no roads, and designate large areas as wilderness. It is the fly in amber idea of nature. I don’t agree. I think that man is part of nature and nature without man is something we by definition can’t appreciate or understand.
Henry David Thoreau is a patron saint of environmentalism, but he didn’t like the wilderness the way we use the term. Living at Walden was a lot like living in a large suburban park. What he called wilderness were the forests broken frequently by farms and fields near Concord, MA. If he wanted to go really far into the woods, he climbed Mt. Monadnock in New Hampshire, which was very pretty, but nothing we would call wilderness then or now. When he had the chance to visit a real wilderness in Maine, he said it was lonely and came quickly back. How can you preserve Thoreau’s wilderness? The “problem” now in New England is the forests are too extensive. Emerson, Thoreau and even the minutemen at Lexington and Concord would not recognize their home counties because today they are so much covered in trees. There is no option for leaving things alone and there is no natural state to return to.
I have strayed too far from the subject, but it is something I believe and I have to wait to see if I have it more or less right.
along those lines, I know that most landowners and even liberal congressmen from the west supported the healthy forest initiative
It was not voted on by congress. But my offer’s still open, Jack. Do these liberal supporters have names? Like I said this is not a strictly blue-red issue - there are some Dems that have crappy environmental records too.
I personally haven’t heard of any support from any person who’s not a died-in-the-wool Bushie. A liberal congressman might qualify as “any one that we can objectively determine to be both informed about the issue and not on the RNC payroll, that actually thinks the Healthy Forest .. [is] good for the environment”. But send me a link, otherwise I’ll go on believing that there’s no such animal.
- William
Posted by: William Cohen at October 18, 2004 09:12 PMJack,
What I am talking about is the safe removal of trees that natural come of age while protecting the young saplings that have grown over the last few years to replace them that is harvested. Although the industry is moving in that direction, we still do not have a piece of equipment that is even close to being prefect.
While clear cutting harms the land, selected harvesting in man made forests have proven to be very cost effective. On virgin forests also need to be cleaned out of the underbursh and dead wood on a regular cycle especially were yearly fires take place.
Saving natural sites that was left to us by our fore fathers should always take center stage, but the proper care and domain over that land should reflect our learned knowledge and Nature’s Way.
Is that close to what you were thinking?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 18, 2004 09:24 PMWilliam
You are right. I can’t without research, and then I doubt I would find many environmental organizations that agree with me. My opinions are my own based on my observations. Besides the Nature Conservancy (by deed not word) as I mentioned above, I stand alone.
Henry
You have summed up a lot of my thinking and I agree with the stewardship model you outline. I believe we can harvest timber and keep our forests healthy. Sometimes good forestry will not be pretty. As I mentioned, some species require clear cutting because the small tree cannot grow in the shade of their parents. A sugar maple or a beech tree will grow in the shade of others. You can use selective cutting. A douglas fir will not. Selective cutting in a douglas fir forest will lead to a forest of western hemlock over time. You may also have to rip up the soil to expose the mineral soil so certain tree species can reproduce. It doesn’t look good. Urban environmentalists will certainly object. You also have trade offs. Even in selective cutting, you will cut a lot of old trees that have passed their maximum growth stage. Cutting old trees is never popular. All the things I have mentioned are active management and I haven’t even started with the need to have hunters thin out animals that might damage small trees. My vision is conservation – i.e. conservative – and it is anathema to many environmental groups.
I probably bring too much passion personal viewpoints to this debate and this should be my last posting on the subject. My dream is to buy a piece of land, make the forest on it healthy, restore the soil and especially reintroduce a hybrid version of the American chestnut, that has not been seen in southern appalachians since the blight wiped it out almost 100 years ago. And I think I will be able to start doing that within the next year or so. That is politically correct; everyone applauds. But I also plan to make some money off the timber, harvest firewood and shoot as much of the local wildlife as state law allows. That makes the picture different. I think the healthy forest initiative has some of the same strengths and weaknesses.
William and Henry
By the way,from my side this seems like a very civilized and respectful exchange of view, even though we clearly disagree. Thanks.
Posted by: jack at October 18, 2004 10:05 PMDark Horse, expect to see more of him in the next few days.
Posted by: Guthrie at October 19, 2004 04:53 AMComment deleted for failing to observe our stated policy in the column header. —WatchBlog Manager.
Posted by: GH at October 26, 2004 04:02 AM
