Forest fires and EPA stupidity

The environmental nut-jobs have taken their brand of stupidity to new and previously unimagined heights. Check this out:

Lost in the images of aircraft dropping giant red plumes of retardant on a Colorado wildfire this week is the fact that the practice may not be legal under federal environmental laws.

A federal judge in July declared that the government's current plan for dropping retardant on fires is illegal, and he gave the U.S. Forest Service until the end of next year to find a more environmentally friendly alternative.

The aerial assaults have become a permanent fixture of television and media coverage of wildfires in recent years as planes and helicopters drop big loads of red chemicals over blazes. But environmentalists say the efforts are essentially public relations stunts that can send millions of gallons of hazardous chemicals into waterways while doing little to contain fires.
The Associated Press: Fire retardant drops come under scrutiny in West

So… Would the environmentalists prefer the fire? What about all the wildlife death that goes along with it? I don't think fires discriminate between endangered and non-endangered species.

Andy Stahl of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, argued his case by telling the court any farmer that puts fertilizer into a creek or river knows he can go to jail for it. It would appear this clueless idiot cannot tell the difference between farming and fire fighting. I wonder if any of these idiots considered the collateral damage from the forest fire. From what I remember the ash, heat thinned tree sap and charred debris poisons the streams and lakes far more thoroughly then over splash form a slurry drop.

What is even more shocking then Stahl's stupidity is that a federal judge actually signed off on it. Last July U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy gave the forest service to the end of 2012 to come up with something more environmentally friendly. Does that mean we have to stop slurry drops on wild fires beginning in 2013? If that is the case, California and the southwest are going to have a hellacious 2013 fire season.

So the environmentalists believe human lives and property are to be allowed to burn rather then risk collateral damage from a slurry drop. Think these clowns might want that slurry drop if they or their homes happened to be in the immediate path of a fire?

I wanted to pursue information on the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, but nothing comes up on Google other then the news stories about this case. Guess their idea of the web is something strung between two trees in a forest.

If our country goes down the crapper, one of the root causes is going to this casting aside common sense in favor of extremist ideology.

-30-

I resent the fact that people in places like Boston, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco believe that they should be able to tell us how to live our lives, operate our businesses, and what to do with the land that we love and cherish.
- Wilford Brimley

Was part of your vote for Obama based on warrant-less wire tapping?

Many people, some who might even be reading this blog, based some part of their 2008 presidential vote on objections to President Bush's warrant-less collection of cell phone call records, location data and taps on international calls. No matter how misguided and misinformed those perceptions were, that was one of the Left's chief complaints and rallying cries against the Evil Right Ring Overlords (tm).

The following is for all those aggrieved when the New York Times (a/k/a/ Al Queda's US Intelligence Arm) exposed the up-till-then remarkably effective counter-terrorism surveillance operations:

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
CNET: Feds push for tracking cell phones

So when will we see mass protests against President Obama and the Justice Department? Everything that was thrown at the Bush administration needs to be thrown at the new bosses now. We need to hear the shouted calls for impeachment, criminal proceedings, banishment to Hell, etc. We need to see protesters at every Obama event complete with signs and fliers. The Daily Kos needs to write an article a day condemning Obama and his efforts to secure the country. The Huffington Post must eloquently detail their indignation at the invasion of their rights. Where are the comparisons with Hitler?

I'm waiting…

Fair is fair, right?

Come on…

Heh… I didn't think so.

-30-

There is no better illustration of that crisis than the fact that the president is openly violating our nation's laws by authorizing the NSA to engage in warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens.
- John Conyers

Does the Miranda Warning go far enough?

Indianapolis, IN - We've all heard the Miranda warning watching movies, police shows and reality shows like Cops. Some of us have heard it read by real police officers. A few may even have had it read to us in a formal capacity.

The Miranda Warning is some variation of these words:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"
Miranda Warning

That brings us to a current case before the United States Supreme Court. The court heard arguments on Monday in Florida v. Powell over the scope and nature of the language advising a suspect about their right to representation by an attorney. Tampa police arrested Kevin Powell and he subsequently agreed to confess his sins. He was given an oral and written Miranda advisement.

The hitch come in this language from the written document Powell signed:

You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.
USA Today

The argument is that the warning as written and apparently verbally given did not leave Powell with the impression he could have an attorney present during questioning. The Florida Supreme Court sided with Powell stating the warning did not clearly convey the message that Powell could consult an attorney at anytime during the questioning. His conviction was overturned.

The State of Florida appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court with the position that the warning contained all that the law required.

I can see why. If this case goes against Florida, there is going to be a wholesale flood of appeals. On the other hand, that is one way to solve the prison over crowding problems in Florida.

Back where I come from the Miranda is slightly different. The sentence at issue is read, "You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning." It would be a shame if a bunch of dirtballs are set free based on one poorly written sentence.

-30-

From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor's rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.
- Carl Schurz