GOP Advocates Letting Homes Burn Down In Face of Wildfires

[Nomad559]

Audio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VNPpHGwc24

CAUGHT ON TAPE: GOP Advocates Letting Homes Burn Down In Face of Wildfires

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/caught-on-tape-gop-advoc_b_62776.html

You want to see the real-world problems with right-wing extremism? Here's a good example from Big Sky Country. With Montana facing major wildfires, senior Montana Republican lawmaker John Sinrud - who heads the state House's appropriations committee - used a legislative hearing this week to attack Gov. Brian Schweitzer's (D) administration for - get ready for this - trying to prevent homes and buildings from being burnt down. At the hearing, he asks "Why not just let burn?" Ah yes, what a refreshing dose of "compassionate" conservatism.

You can listen to the audio yourself (which was also posted by Kos this morning). But there's an even bigger backstory to all this that makes this offensive statement worse. See the extended entry for what I mean.

[ananda]

1. Are Goopers aliens?!

They can't be human.

It's been a long time since I heard a Reep say something
truly human.

[Jed Dilligan]

2. If he was talking Malibu, I'd say yeah

I'm sick of paying to rebuild for the rich.

Homes do not belong on the watersheds in the Western U.S., and that's no joke.

[Trillo]

3. Was any of Montana's and included local districts'

firefighting equipment requisitioned for Iraq?

[mrbluto]

4. Not Enough Context - Possibly Misleading.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but leading the story with this one sound bite arouses my skepticism for the ax the poster is obviously attempting to grind. It almost shades into the sort of story a Karl Rove might float in the hope some non-republicans might form a circular firing squad and provide fresh red meat (in the form of twistable quotes) used to throw the press off of vital issues at critical junctures in the news cycle.

Seriously - how many times have you had a discussion, had a favored position, and found it instructive to ask a question in that manner. i.e. "Why devote any resources to providing education for anyone's kids but my own?" (General productivity, ensuring that everyone understands and is more likely to defend their rights, public safety, public health, etc., etc."

Perfectly valid phrasing in a brainstorming session, or to get some clarity in a dialog.

I'd need to see more besides this post and an "R" beside the guy's name before scolding him and indicating he's actually advocating letting homes burn.

"Parsing" the truth into pabulum is what *They* do and we shouldn't even waste our time attempting the opposite. Let them stew in their echo chamber. Let us chart a course, and make progress.

Even if he *is* saying "Let them burn": it might be a valid approach. What is the cost/benefit?

Perhaps it's better to give out 20 $5k Pell Grants and $100k comp to a homeowner versus spending $500k and risking lives to save a $250 vacation home. or a shack. or $250k of non-historic whatever.

Picking flysh*t out of pepper in order to paint a picture of a bad Republican is of diminishing value and risks serious blow-back (i.e. real accusations not being considered credible.)

If this is a case of that then I strongly discourage it.

Besides, evidence indicates that the GOP leadership and the Bush administration is so morally bankrupt that it's virtually effortless to guess what they've done, or think, or plan for us. (Want to try? Just put on your bizzaro-frayboy-thinking-cap for a few minutes. Now throw in a little Milton Freedman and strain out the Keynes. Now abandon all sense and restraint, mix with Freudian bits and unbridled power. Think a few minutes more. Voilia! Democracy Upside-Down Governance! With Faux News frosting!)

The REAL challenge is getting our democratic representatives to have enough spine to actually *DO* something about what the current damage, and their opponent's capacity to cause future damage. (rather than operate on the cynical calculation that X more months of Bush will make us that much more willing to vote for them, and ignore the moral hazard they're creating.)

Stack up "a sprinkling of houses in some forests burning" against "listening to virtually every phone call in the country with no need for a warrant, nor FISA review, paid for with your tax money AND some fraction money you give the phone company intended solely for phone service" (Where is the "Wiretap-me-please" line item on the bill? Can one get a discount if you just tell them what they want to know?)

Sorry, but I'm going to go ahead *be* a mean bastard and I *am* going to trivialize the poster's issue - One of these things is WAY more serious than the other.

IMHO: the endangered bill of rights trumps the plight of smoke-scented real estate flipping fodder.

Choose issues with care.

[Peregrine Took]

5. Including their own?? n/t