richosob Loc: Lambertville, MI

I believe you're talking of yourself

mwalsh Loc: Houston

btbg

Sorry that you feel that way. I repeat my invitation. Come and visit and look at the evidence. I know what I can see, and it doesn't take a genius. It is amazing to me that you insist how wrong I am and say I need facts, well the facts are in the forest that you refuse to come and look at. Just come and see for yourself. If you still believe what you believe, that's fine. No problem, but to be so sure that you are right and someone else is wrong and yet refuse to come and see the evidence that is readily available, that's your problem, not mine.

I am fully aware of the dictionary definition of drought. I am also fully aware that there are many factors that go into what makes an arid region a******lly dry and it isn't only drought. There are many factors.

I don't know what you want for facts, since the evidence is physical and you can't see it if you aren't there. If you just come and look I can show you drought stricken federal forest with healthy green lush private forest adjacent. Since both are in the same place and get the same rainfall, obviously something other than just lower than average precipitation or high temperatures is at work.

That, like it or not is a fact, but the only way someone can actually see the fact is to come and see for themselves. I would be happy to take photos to show you, but you would just say that the photos were cherry picked and not representative of the facts. In spite of what you think I am trying to be reasonable. Just come for a visit. There will be no argument and you will be treated cordially.

If you still think I am crazy after you see the forests, well so be it, but to say someone is nuts when you are unwilling to see what it is they are talking about, that's your problem, not mine.

In addition, architect did supply an early study on juniper and water. It should be enough to show how damaging the tree is, but I notice that you ignored that set of facts. As you continue to insist that no plants can change groundwater or streamflow.

The same goes for the spotted owl and stopping logging in eastern Oregon. The spotted owl recovery plan was written at approximately the same time that Clinton appointed Thomas as head of the agency. Thomas was a GS15 at the time, the same as my uncle and his research partner. By law any head of the agency was required to be a GS17, but that was ignored.

Thomas used to work in the same office as my uncle and was known to be anti logging. Shortly after his appointment the spotted owl was suddenly divided into the northern and southern spotted owl and virtually all logging in Eastern Oregon federal forests was stopped. You said to deal in facts, that is a fact. If you don't believe it look up Thomas for yourself. I have more important things to do than to spend time looking up something that I already know.

So, in spite of you believing that I have not supplied any facts, they are readily available, but the only way that you can possibly see for yourself the real problem with our forests is if you come and look. But once again, that offer has been extended countless times and no one who believes as you do will bother to come and see the evidence for themselves.

I don't know what you want me to say, I know what I see with my own eyes. If you would come and look, you might interpret the data differently, but at least you would see that I'm not crazy. But wh**ever, you are so sure that you are correct that you apparently don't want to look at the evidence.

I would think that the photo of juniper trees and a neighboring plot of land where they have been removed would show that at least some of what I have said has merit, but I guess that's not the case, since you didn't bother to even comment on it, which is exactly what you have accused me of.

btbg

By the way, Keenan, I didn't say die off on douglas fir, I said that there would be blowdown, not the same thing. There are a number of recent studies about the interconnectedness of tree roots. If you google it, you will find that Douglas fir send down a tap root, unless they are in rocky shallow soil, and then they send out lengthy roots surrounding the tree. Other trees in the same area do the same thing and those roots become intertwined. So when a tree is removed and the roots begin to rot, it impacts the stability of neighboring trees. The other issue with douglas fir that is also easy to confirm is that the seedlings need direct sunlight to thrive. Prior to man that happened when fire opened up a large piece of land. Now, the clearcuts mimic that. That is also easy to confirm, just look up douglas fir on the oregon department of forestry website. The end result is that douglas fir grow in equal aged stands of trees. And in spite of your assertion it is easy to find evidence of blowdown in trees adjacent to clear cuts.

Check anywhere you want. If you selective cut douglas fir you will see increased blowdown and you will be unable to replant successfully.

You are so sure that I have no knowledge of what I am talking about, but reforestation is what all of my uncle's 40 years of research is about.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

You don't listen. You don't learn. You refuse to take a scientific approach, using careful study and research and knowledge to understand complex systems, and just make things up and then present your made up guesses with 100% certitude when you cannot possibly know whether your opinions are accurate or not.

I will repeat what I said before: If you want to continue this discussion with me, come back when you have facts, evidence, knowledge, and logic.

Stop pretending you are a heart surgeon and can diagnose someone's heart issues without the proper training, research, and investigation. You cannot possibly know what someone's heart problem is just by looking at the person, and you cannot be a heart surgeon just by making things up as you go along. You need to peer inside the person's body, using instruments, and run tests on the person, and utilize the knowledge and science upon which the profession is built. It is the same with other complex issues and systems, whether forest ecology, climatology, ecosystems, hydrology, and all of the other complex systems that you have been ignorantly spewing your baseless and speculative opinions about. All of these things need a careful scientific approach to know what is going on, opposite of your guess work and make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach, but to understand all of the complex factors involved, and use the process of elimination and scientific method to disprove various alternate theories or conclusions until you can come up with the most likely and evidenced conclusion. You haven't done any of this. I don't know how to explain this to you more simply than I already have. Your approach is completely moronic. You just aren't grasping that you need to take a scientific approach using careful research, study, and expertise to make any informed conclusions on these issues.

Your approach to knowledge is right out of the middle ages. Rumors, myths, superstitions, and anecdotal stories seem to be sufficient for you to think you have figured it all out. I suspect that being raised in a religious environment in which you were taught to believe in Iron Age myths completely destroyed your critical thinking abilities and your respect for science and education, and is a large part of your problem. This seems to be a big source of the problem with so many right wingers today. Ignorance, gullibility, and disrespect for expertise, science and objective facts/knowledge seem to be celebrated traits of conservatives these days in America, along with the delusional idea that such ignorant uneducated people are smarter and know more than the trained experts.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

You keep insisting you have knowledge and evidence, but haven't shown me any yet. Put up or shut up. Show me you have done the careful study and scientific research to back up your claims. Show me verifiable facts and evidence. That means, provide me the links to scientific studies that back up your claims (oh, and not studies paid for by the logging industry, I mean independent credible scientific studies, lol). And show me the data and links to your research you've done and the evidence to support your own conclusions. You can't just insist you know what you are talking about and expect me to believe you, when you have no training or scientific background in any of the issues you are bloviating about. You have to prove your claims, not insist that I should just take your word for it.

And given your stupid i***tic assertions on this thread, I have ZERO reason now to take you seriously. You have already proven that you are a deluded nitwit ("no such thing as droughts, the only problem is not enough trees being logged", "clear cutting Douglas Fir forests is better than selective cutting"). It's going to be extremely difficult to repair the total destruction you have inflicted to your credibility and reputation.

You might as well go ahead and bloviate that:

1) Toxic sludge is good for you
2) Smoking is good for you and doesn't cause cancer
3) Most environmental problems are due to too much nature still alive and not enough of the earth has been paved over

jsvend Loc: Indiana

Self-Government Not Climate at Issue in Paris Agreement

It’s time for a serious discussion about what just happened with the Paris Climate agreement. President Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. participation was not only a fulfillment of his campaign promise and utterly predictable, it was his clear legal prerogative to do it. The Paris agreement was not a treaty; it was not law. It was a personal agreement between Barack Obama and a number of other world leaders. Their agreement not only lacked hard enforcement provisions, they were not binding on the home nations of any of the signatures that did not then decide to make it the law of their lands.

For our purposes here, it is less interesting to debate whether or not c*****e c****e is natural or man-made, or whether the worst-case scenarios offered about its supposed effects are realistic. Those are questions of judgment and they are not the issue at hand. Instead, we want to focus on the legitimacy of these kinds of international agreements and how they are made under the United States Constitution. In other words, who gets to make the judgments discussed above? And who decides what the United States should do in response to potential c*****e c****e?

For the sake of argument, let us assume that c*****e c****e is caused directly by man’s activity and that it will lead to catastrophic environmental consequences. Within the next century, coastal cities will be inundated by the oceans, widespread crop failures will lead to worldwide famines, and any number of disastrous events will be the result of our failure to enact the provisions of the Paris Agreement.

If all this is true, then it was the duty of President Obama not only to make a personal agreement with other world leaders, but to make the case for the Paris Agreement to the Senate and the American people. It is only through ratification by the Senate that any agreement made by a President of the United States becomes a treaty under U.S. law.
Article 2, section 2 of the United States Constitution reads, “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” If the Paris Climate Accord was an issue of primary importance, this should have been done.

If the Paris accord had been ratified by the Senate, it would be federal law. If it was law, then President Trump would have no power to withdraw the United States from participating in it. The primary duty of the President, as stated in section 3 of Article 2 is that, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” If it had been a ratified international treaty, President Trump would be obligated to carry out the Paris Agreement, barring an additional act of Congress to repeal it.

Why then was the Paris agreement not presented to the Senate for their ratification? Doubtless, many Democrats would defend then President Obama’s inaction due to the fact that there was a Republican majority in the Senate that might not have been receptive to the pact. That is hardly an acceptable excuse, and it is emblematic of a much deeper problem with President Obama’s take on governing. If the case for the Paris agreement is as clear as its advocates claim, certainly that case could have been made to the Senators and the the people that they represent.

A poll conducted by the George Mason University’s Center for C*****e C****e Communication in November of 2016, cited by the Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, The Atlantic and many other legacy media outlets, makes the claim that 71% of Americans support the Paris deal, with only 13% opposed. They go on to say that even a majority of Republicans, including Trump v**ers, support the Paris agreement. If this is to be believed, certainly the pressure of public opinion might have been mustered to pressure the requisite number of Senators to ratify the agreement and make a treaty, right?

For all their talk about “democracy” and the “people,” the simple t***h is that progressives don’t have much use for democratic institutions. They do not really believe in self-government. What they believe in is government by an expert elite who deem it their fate in life to protect the people from themselves.

This was the regular course of action during the Obama presidency. Obama did not deign to make the case through our Constitutionally-mandated system of checks and balances, but sought instead to put into place policies that did not enjoy popular support by empowering unelected bureaucrats who shared his preferences to take on roles never envisioned by the lawmakers who created the laws that empowered them. We can see this nowhere more clearly than in “environmental” policy through the overreach of the Obama EPA.

What progressives in the Democratic Party (and, sadly, many wobbly members of the Republican Party) fail to realize, is that this is what brought them the Trump presidency.
Most of the United States still believes in the Constitution, and in the republican form of self-government. The American people remain capable of governing themselves. As Ronald Reagan said in his first inaugural address,

This is the grassroots swell that fueled the Reagan Revolution and that elevated Donald Trump to the Republican nomination and E*******l College victory, despite the best efforts of the progressive/media establishment to preserve the old order.

If progressives want to make a counter-argument within our Constitutional framework, they are most welcome to do so. Unlike the progressive bureaucratic order, our republican system does not stymie opposing viewpoints. The system the Founders created allows us as a people to make important decisions through our representatives in Washington. If they can make the stronger argument Progressives can still win. During his brief time in office, President Trump has worked diligently to restore national sovereignty and the principles of a self-governing republic. That, not c*****e c****e, is what really frightens progressives.

We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. We not only do not need unelected bureaucrats running our lives, we resent their attempts to do so.


About the Author: Sam Agami

Sam Agami has taught American History, Civics, and Economics in the Virginia Beach Public Schools since 1999. He earned a M.A. in American History and Government from Ashland University in Ohio. A native of New Rochelle, NY, he currently resides in Norfolk, VA with his wife Deanna.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Thom, you always admittedly have difficulty with my sarcasm, so you should be a little more tempered, particularly when some can agree with good points made by either side. Unfortunately there are many who want to push their point without regard for the views of others.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Haha, the little cupcake is back on his cutsie little diatribes. Give it up loser! We know you for the lying POS you are!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Try following the thread and you'll see that there is but one crapper, the one and only cupcake!

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

It's early. I hope you are right. So far I don't see any evidence of it. Pertaining to our exchange the other day (is he a bigot) are you aware of his history, including his recent history, with the "Central Park Five"?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I'm not attacking you. You just confuse me as to where you are coming from.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I understand,Thom, I was just reminding you of our past history with respect to my humor. About the only attacker is that character you know as Keenan and most of the rest refer to him as Cupcake for various reasons that he fully understands.