We soon may never again have to worry about Western Forest Fires. If the Bush Administration has its way, the problem could be eliminated once and for all whether we like it or not.
The author, George Orwell, in his classic book, 1984, describes a society, Oceana, where the government and the media are one and they manipulate the citizenry by, among other ways, manipulating language. As has been pointed out before, the Bush Administration has mastered Orwellian double-speak.
Thus, a bill that allows power plants to postpone mandatory upgrading of their smokestacks, letting them continue to pollute for years, is called the "Clear Skies Act." Or a regulation that opens protected National Forests to logging is called the "Healthy Forests Initiative." It's all eerily familiar if you've read Orwell's book where the three tenants of Oceana mind control are: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength. And double-speak can be highly effective, especially when the media plays along and the public wants to believe.
But I didn't realize how adept this administration had become at it, how compliant the media had become in it, nor how pervasive the message control had become until I read a recent AP article about out National Forests printed in the Albuquerque Journal.
Keep in mind, that the forests referred to here are those previously placed off limits to logging in order to preserve the trees and the wildlife habitat they provide. From the very day these lands were protected, the logging companies--which make their money, ... well, logging, and which are big Bush contributors--have desperately wanted to open these forests to logging. And who did Bush place in charge of our National Forests? Who is the person charged with preserving these natural treasures for future generations? Mark Rey, a life-long Timber Industry lobbyist who has dedicated his life to maximizing Timber Industry profits and opening up as many acres of National Forest to cutting as possible.
So let's see, how can we open heretofore protected forests to timber industry logging without looking like that's exactly what we're doing? What can we call it so that it doesn't sound like logging, even though it is?
Thinner Forests Planned
The Bush administration plans to double efforts to thin fire-prone Western forests and will emphasize the cutting of trees that can be sold to help pay for the work, Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey said.
Along with increased thinning, the administration wants to reform the Endangered Species Act, streamline national forest management, and give states more power in managing roadless areas, said Rey, who directs the nation's forest policy.
But Rey, speaking Thursday at the annual meeting of the Intermountain Forest Association, did not offer any details on exactly what type of Endangered Species Act reforms the president would support.
Since Bush took office in 2000, there has been a fourfold increase in the amount of national forest acreage treated to prevent wildfires. Last year, about 4 million acres were treated with prescription burning or mechanical thinning, and the president wants to double that amount over the next couple of years, Rey said.
A majority of the thinned trees will be sold to saw mills, fuel pellet plants, or biomass electricity generators, Rey said.
The double-speak is almost mind boggling. But it all boils down to this: "Let's save the trees by cutting them down." Or put in more patriotic, all-American terms, "Let's liberate them from their roots."
In this Bushwellian world, logging becomes "thinning," clear cutting becomes "treating," and it is all justified because the government doesn't have to pay the loggers to perform this much needed service. But if Timber Companies are allowed into previously restricted National Forest land where they cut trees that they then sell to saw mills, isn't that logging? If you think about it, anytime a logging company cuts a tree it is thinning the forest. So if thinning is the goal, then let's cut all the trees. Even if the logging company clear-cuts two thousand trees devastating an entire mountain side, that's still technically thinning the forest.
Obviously, thinning the forest to prevent forest fires isn't the goal, cutting down trees to make lumber is the goal and, more specifically, getting cheap access to National Forest trees is the goal. But since you can't just say that--people tend to like trees and feel protective of our National Forests--you have to "call it what it ain't" and package it for sale to the American public.
The fact that Rey can even make these statements with a straight face is testament to his propaganda prowess. One can envision wide-eyed mid-westerners sitting around a table being asked what they think of logging in our National Forests. There is a grumble and some groans and then one or two pipe up to say that our forests are a treasure to be protected, or some such notion. Then they are asked what they think of preventing forest fires. I'm sure they picture Smokey the Bear and all those adverts we saw growing up saying, "Only you can prevent Forest Fires." Who could be opposed to that? And then they are told that thinning the forests can prevent fires and they're asked, "So shouldn't we thin the forests to stop the fires?" Heads nod all around.
So with the focus group responses in hand, the devious Rey and his message control minions set about to recast reality to suit their corporate logging agendas and ravage our National Forests. We're not opening the protected forests to logging. We're treating the forests to prevent forest fires. It's brilliant.
I mean, what could be a more effective forest fire prevention scheme? You could actually promise 100% success. In those areas thusly "treated," there absolutely will be no forest fires. Because you can't really have a forest fire without a forest, now can you?
It makes perfect sense to me.