Re: As California Burns, Where Is Bush?

Curly wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:32:30 -0500, Jeff McCann wrote:
>
>> Curly wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:09:20 -0500, Jeff McCann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Curly wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:47:01 -0500, Jeff McCann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 8:03 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well this looks like a repeat of New Orleans.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder when George will show up for the photo ops?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>>> Oh silly me...of course we know where Bush is...he's getting ready
>>>>>>> for the photo op.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And for what it is worth...lots of people here are saying this
>>>>>>> disaster reminds them of Katrina/New Orleans...and of the
>>>>>>> President's lack of action.
>>>>>> So far as I can tell, the SoCal fires are matters under state and/or
>>>>>> local jurisdiction, and federal resources have not been requested by
>>>>>> them.
>>>>> Most of the land in flames is National Forest such as the Angeles
>>>>> National Forest around Canyon Country.
>>>> Does CA have an agreement with the feds over initial responsibility for
>>>> firefighting in those areas?
>>> No idea, if you find out let me know. Historically these fires reoccur
>>> every few years and are so intense that every organization, including
>>> voluteers, jump on them immediately. I fought a few in that area as a
>>> volunteer in the 70's and little discussion was heard as to
>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> Normally the National Guard, both National and State, are on the scene
>>> immediately along with DofF and CDF however most of our national guard
>>> are busy in central asia and Iraq these days. Their loss on the
>>> firelines will no doubt be brought up in the popular press shortly.
>>>
>>>> These appear to be largely urban interface fire areas, with overlapping
>>>> jurisdiction.
>>> Another false assumption.
>> You are merely demonstrating your ignorance and the arrogance that often
>> accompanies it.
>
> Then correct my ignorance with facts.

You first. You labeled my statements, first, as "false assumptions," without any effort to cite contrary facts. How Gunner-like of you.

> Absent any supporting evidence the
> very definition of "wildfire" negates your erroneous assumptions. "Wildfires" do not occur to this magnitude in urban areas.

You just don't know this particular subject, but your ego apparently won't let you admit it. "Urban interface" doesn't refer to fires in "urban areas." It refers to areas where man-made structures are located adjacent to wildland or natural areas.

"The Interface zone [is] where man-made structures inter-mingle with wildlands, creating risk of structural involvement in a wildland fire incident."
www.answers.com/topic/glossary-of-wildland-fire-terms

>>>> As a practical matter,
>>>> local and state resources are usually "first in" in such fires.
>>> Addressed above. Urban and Eastern dwellers know little about our
>>> climate or needs. Again, please study the problem before issuing
>>> proclamations out of ignorance.
>> Speaking of ignorance, I lived a quarter century in CA, spent time on some
>> wildland fire lines there, and am well acquainted with the prevailing
>> conditions. My brother is a city manager of a CA city and we've been
>> discussing and observing the situation with interest. Moreover, I am a
>> firefighter in a jurisdiction with state and federal lands and large urban
>> interface issues, as well as a lawyer who deals with such emergency
>> service jurisdictional issues, as well as an experienced federal disaster
>> response professional. For example, I worked the major wildland/urban
>> interface fire complex in Flagler County, FL some years ago. I know
>> whereof I speak.
>
> San Francisco is a California city. Fires in San Francisco offer no
> experience with California brush fires. Although as a lawyer you might
> simply blow it out with hot air.

I never fought or worked at a fire in San Francisco, but I have done so in the urban interface and wildland areas in the far South SF Bay Area and in central CA coastal areas.

>>>>>> Therefore, Bush and the feds have no official role to play in
>>> managing
>>>>>> or responding to this event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>> Faulty assumptions. Please check facts before apologizing for the
>>>>> neocons.
>>>> CA's governor first requested a federal major disaster declaration
>>>> late yesterday. Bush granted the request today. Seems fairly timely
>>>> to me.
>>> Addressed above. Multiple federal bureaus are first to the scene of
>>> these regular disasters.
>> Utter bull*** as to "first to the scene," but correct that multiple
>> agencies, state, federal and local, have an active role to play in the
>> overall response.
>>
>> From the Department of Forestry, Department of Land
>>> Management, Department of the Interior, California Department of
>>> Forestry and various guard units, every able body is thrown at these
>>> fast moving blazes as quickly as possibly. On major tool is the fleet
>>> of C130 tankers to throw water on the front lines protecting both the
>>> firefighters and to delay the blaze.
>> Who do you suppose owns and operates most of those tankers? Most are by
>> contract operators, not the feds.
>
> Cites? In the Central Valley and Southern California the tankers are
> owned and operated by the CDF, California Department of Forestry. More
> hot air, if you had facts you would have cited them.

Another ignorant assumption. We were discussing *federal* firefighting assets. The feds now lease a majority of aerial tankers, due in part to the grounding of USFS-owned tankers after crashes in 2002, 2005 and the end of service-life issues. The states can also lease such AC from a number of operators.
>
>>> A responsible government doesn't wait to be asked, they anticipate and
>>> react fast. Unlike Katrina.
>> More ignorant bull***. You really haven't a clue, do you?
>
> Ha! More lawyer-talk, when you lose on the facts attack the witness...

What a hypocrite! You attacked me first, now you're whining when I reply in kind.

>>>> As for being an apologist for the Bush/NeoCon cabal - not hardly.
>>>> But
>>>> I try to stick to the facts as I understand them,
>>> You don't understand this situation. What "facts" do you understand?
>>> Do you live here?
>> I understand more than you do about this situation, obviously.
>
> Only in your mind.

Um, OK, if you say so, whatever.

Jeff
.

Loading