Don's Tuesday column

             THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News   9/10/2013

Declining forests (Not); Liberators; Pinkies

Here are some items that haven’t previously found space in a column:

A couple of years ago, a piece from About.com, titled “Forest Land Area from 1630 to 2002.” induced thought of how Tehama County’s economic fortunes have faded as forests became off-limits to logging, only to burn from excessive growth. It also reminded me of a conversation that journalist John Stossel had with some grade school kids: “Are air and water getting cleaner or dirtier?” Chorus: “dirtier.” “Are forests getting smaller, larger or about the same?” Chorus: smaller. The “chilluns” had been so informed, apparently by their teachers and other assorted sources (cartoons, movies, etc). Mr. Stossel presented, to their astonishment, factual evidence that refuted what they believed.

The chart and article, “A United States Forest Acreage Trendline,” still available at http://forestry.about.com/library/bl_us_forest_acre_trend.htm starts with what, from USFS/FIA sources, appears to be dramatic declines in the South and North beginning around 1750 through about 1907. The settlers “initiated large land clearing efforts which had a great impact on forest acreage—especially in the new colonies.” Timber became a major source of trade with England, providing quality wood mainly for shipbuilding; fencing, homes and firewood usage grew, also. Agriculture displaced forests to feed a growing nation.

Meanwhile, Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain forests remained undiminished until about a century ago. Forestry efforts by federal and state governments then responded to alarm over diminished forests and, over the last century, the South has stabilized its acreage, the North has increased its acreage, while the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast forests have undergone fairly minor reductions. The approximately 1.0 billion acres present in 1630 declined about 25 percent by around 1910, mostly back east. Currently, forests are not declining and haven’t, in a net sense, for the last 100 years. Forests, in 1900, were “less than we have today.”

When you hear or read that timber harvest plans, or salvage logging after fires, are held up by environmentalists, or see anti-logging themes in fictional movies or shows, remember that forest growth can’t be stopped, forestry-science-driven logging is the very definition of “sustainable practices,” and, whether they admit it or not, anti-logging fanatics are not engaged in environmental altruism. They peddle doom-and-gloom over current forests that, if anything, are more abundant than a century ago. “Tree huggers” are fanatics who ideologically oppose timber harvests, period—economic and forest health benefits be damned.

An April article from Powerlineblog.com, “Revisionist History Aside, We Were Greeted as Liberators In Iraq,” reminded me how, when this column began in 2005, no small amount of space was devoted to pushing back against the anti-Iraq war narratives from local writers. Old issue, except that ideologically driven anathema towards the war by President Obama has driven him to leave no forces behind for stabilization. All our military sacrifices may be wasted if Iraq descends back into sectarian violence and becomes an ally of Iran.

“The late Christopher Hitchens had a standard response to Iraq war critics who ridiculed Vice President Cheney and others who predicted that U.S. troops would by greeted as liberators in Iraq. His response: ‘They were, I saw it.’” From the Daily Record of April 10, 2003: “Baghdad’s people rammed (deputy premier) Tariq Aziz’s sneers (over Allied troops being welcomed) down his throat. Hundreds threw bouquets at US tanks as they rumbled through the city. Mothers held up babies for soldiers to kiss. Kids reached out to touch the tanks. The fact of their freedom was hard for many Iraqis to accept. Millions have lived their whole lives under a regime where it was a crime to throw away a newspaper, because Saddam’s face was always on the front page…(They) poured on to the streets to celebrate.”

From the Boston Globe: (Tank and infantry task force commander) Lieutenant Colonel John Charlton…expected to find stiff resistance (but) found hundreds of smiling, cheering Baghdad residents. ‘We came in ready to attack…Instead it was a celebration…civilians all came out and were overjoyed to see us. A lot of them spoke English and had relatives in the United States (and) were thanking us for our help and denouncing Saddam and the regime.” I see America’s military as the greatest force for good, for liberation, in the history of the world.

A political cartoon from the Chicago Tribune in 1934 is disturbingly relevant: Searchable by title: “Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?” (hat tip to friends Joe and Suzie), it shows a two wheeled, donkey-driven cart careening recklessly down a road, and some bespectacled, university-gown-clothed riders hoisting a bottle of that all-intoxicating substance, “POWER,” yelling “WHOOPEE!” (caps in original). Viciously flogging the donkey is (FDR’s Rexford) “Tugwell—Head Brain Truster.” Other occupants—Ickes, Wallace and Richberg, together with students labeled “Young pinkies from Columbia and Harvard,”—are shoveling out bags of money as they bounce down the road. Cart sign says “Depleting the resources of the soundest government in the world” while a long-robed Stalin, gazing from a distance, says, “How red the sunrise is getting.”

Next to the road, a wild-haired, goateed little figure writes: “ ‘Plan of Action for U.S.’ SPEND! SPEND! SPEND under the guise of recovery—bust the government—blame the capitalists for the failure—junk the constitution and declare a dictatorship” and, to himself, says, “It worked in Russia!”