sombrerofallout @ 75

OT, but hey–

Almost gets it but misses it a little bit.

The houses burnt down in Orange County? Were mostly old houses. Silverado itself is a 100 years old. The fires — through the lack of water which as he correctly notes is drying up with the population increase, but as he fails to understand, irrespective of the location of said population other than that it’s somewhere in southern California — is leading to hotter and worse fires, which are now reaching into areas herefore not normally troubled with fires as well as the newer subdivisions everyone likes to pour such scorn on.

I just wish people would realize that part of the equation. A hundred year old house burning down is not a house that was stupidly and thoughtlessly planted in the path of a fire. This issue is more about the dearth of water and the excess of population, than it is on exactly where people build.

You make three blatant errors in this response (though due to syntax, your actual position is not easily sussed out).

1. Both Fulton and Grijalva both do understand that poor land use decisions (i.e., where to build) and fire-suppression policies lead to hotter and more intense fires. NOT lack of water. When even Grijalva gets it, the issue is pretty much nailed down.

Please at least read the link before merely contradicting overwhelmingly accepted/proven ecological facts.

2. It’s not about the water. These ecosystems will burn anyway, even in times of relatively high moisture/water levels.

3. Respectfully, it’s incorrect to say ‘areas that have never burnt before’ (paraphrasing). They have indeed burnt before. And they’ll burn again. The natural history of these ecosystems include regularly occurences of fire.

4. It’s not about whether the houses are old or new. Relatively new houses have burnt in the past–and will burn in the future, and for the same reasons cited.

One more time, slowly: It is not the lack of water. It is not the actual population numbers. It’s the combination of land use (where homes are built) and misguided fire suppression policies.

Policies (land development policies and environmental policies) that contradict basic foundational ecological constraints are the root cause here. It comes down to poor decisions about ecological management (something of a contradiction here) and not wanting to face the facts or accept the inevitable consequences of those decisions.

We don’t build in 100-year floodplains, either–and the fire-cycle here is 20 to 40 years under natural conditions.

Mike Davis does a fantastic job on California urban, developmental, and natural history, and is one of the most accomplished and responsible historians anyone can come up with:
Let Malibu Burn: A political history of the Fire Coast

http://www.radicalurbantheory……uburn.html

mui @ 76

No offense to anyone who’s on the force. But this is the kind of relationship I remember that the police managed to cultivate in the less privileged neighborhoods ca.late 80s early 90s. I think it has direct bearing on in the incarceration levels.

Speaking of cops & priveleged neighborhoods. I was originally much puzzled by NYS’s Compstat. It seems it’s a plan to put cops where the crime is. Came in in the 1990s during Ghouliani, courtest of Police commish Bratton, now in LaCa. My puzzle was this: what did they do before? It doesn’t take computers to figure out where the crime is. That’s what maps & push pins used to be for. I finally figured out that they used to put cops in the good neighborhoods where there wasn’t crime, because those are where the taxes come from. Called conspicuous cops, but doesn’t do sh*t for cutting crime.

Yeah I think our landlord had a hissy fit and there would be a cop posted across the street, up until certain hours. I know they had police officers undercover patrolling. But they were so obvious. None of this made a dent. It only meant the neighborhood had lines and people waiting until the officers left. It was kabuki. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from that. I did love that neighborhood too. I am still nostalgic for the island flavor, the music, the painted palm trees, the pina colada malt drinks, the dominoes. *sigh*

I think many in the defense bar will object to this approach. Many crack defendants were sentenced in a mandatory guideline universe which no longer exists, and were denied any analysis of other sentencing factors that the courts must now consider under 18 usc 3553. That analysis can’t adequately be made now without the benefit of an advocate and client contribution and a new sentencing hearing. I think that’s what I would argue.

Some jurisdictions have heavier case loads and more crack cases than others. It could be a problem, no question, in some places. But they’ll find a way to cope.

At the low end, 25 grams (under an ounce) of powder coke , 2.5 grams of meth and 250 mg (1/4 gram?)have the same guideline level.

TexBetsy at 1: Are the changes regarding possession or dealing or both?

Both.

Nomolos at 8: “If there is to be retroactivity is there going to be money andprovision for access to a mental health program or are the powers thatbe just going to chuck 10,000 or more maladjusted and pissed off folksonto the streets with no hope and no help?”

Well, the sentences will get about 16 months shorter, I don’t know how many would qualify for immediate release. Usually you get half-way housed about 6 months before release.

Poor Georgie is stomping his feet again. This time he calls out the bloggers: “When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground,” Bush said, “and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.” Link to full Article

All this man knows is Fear and War. I hope Congress keeps sitting on his pet funding legislation and keeps sending him SCHIP legislation so he can keep Vetoing. Maybe he will figure out that if he doesn’t compromise and work to build consensus, he will not get anything from congress. I sure hope our leaders will do this.

The aforesaid brushwhacker-in-chief is THE biggest, baddest, most severe case of Amoral, Ethically Challenged, Spoiled Brat Syndrome that I have ever encountered in my entire lifetime!

Try to guess how much compromise and conciliation I am willing to expend on achieving consensus with that monster.

I shall continue expressing my views to those whom I wish to represent me in Congress, as well as those who surely don’t care about such things, but who should.

Bye gang. Gotta go try not to burn some veggieburgers, while my sweetie toils at the toobz. We share, don’tcha know. OUR kids know how. How come Bar ‘n bigG’s kid missed out on that? O.M.G. What. A. Waste.! *sniffle*

No offense to anyone who’s on the force. But this is the kind of relationship I remember that the police managed to cultivate in the less privileged neighborhoods ca.late 80s early 90s. I think it has direct bearing on in the incarceration levels.

Speaking of cops & priveleged neighborhoods. I was originally much puzzled by NYS’s Compstat. It seems it’s a plan to put cops where the crime is. Came in in the 1990s during Ghouliani, courtest of Police commish Bratton, now in LaCa. My puzzle was this: what did they do before? It doesn’t take computers to figure out where the crime is. That’s what maps & push pins used to be for. I finally figured out that they used to put cops in the good neighborhoods where there wasn’t crime, because those are where the taxes come from. Called conspicuous cops, but doesn’t do sh*t for cutting crime.