Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
I'm hearing that the USFS has laid off huge numbers of firefighters, including veterans, and won't be allowed to hire their usual seasonal firefighting force this year.
Time to start auctioning off public land
My wife works for the NPS and she says they’re next.
Yeah, they're firing everybody who was hired in the last two years, no matter what they work on. That includes people who do stuff like nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship — Musk denied a national security exemption for them.
Hey at least that means the nukes might not work?
No, it means someone might walk away with some nukes.
Drive away is probably more realistic, though. Those things are a bit heavy..
You’d be surprised what you can fit in a Prius,
I guess that’s still driving though.
a Prius,
I guess that’s still driving though.
That is nightmarish.
I'd bet real money that Israel is the place we'll see nukes going off.
Someone is going to get to LARP as Raven
They don't maintain the nukes. They make sure they're accounted for.
When I worked retail, we took inventory of stuff even if the computer said it hadn't been sold, because people would steal shit. If we stopped doing inventory, we'd never know the thefts had happened.
Imagine that, but instead of iPads, we lose track of nuclear weapons.
also, if all the national parks burn, no more need for a park service at all, or a fish and wildlife agency. #winning.
Fuck around = laying off many thousands of combat veterans
Find out = creating a small army of combat-trained Luigis
I might be wrong, but it seems like we're a ways from right winger on right winger violence.
The 2nd most recent attempted assassination was by a Republican. Also democrats join the military too.
True, but pew says, "63% of veteran voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, while 35% are Democrats or Democratic leaners."
So it seems like 2/3 of the military are likely to be republicans. Not sure how that factors into radicalization but I assume republicans are going to be less inclined to rebel. But I'm not an expert.
Can we talk about how PG&E causes most of the fires- because they’re too cheap?
Maybe we can talk about how the California government, including Newsom, have explicitly allowed PG&E to pass along the fines for their responsibility in the fires and being convicted of manslaughter to customers. And how this has made the penalties for their criminal negligence meaningless.
Fines against publicly traded companies need to be in the form of shares, not dollars.
Or measured in percentage of overall profits. Preferably both.
If they have to forfeit say half of the years profits and a 10% share of the company as punishment, they might actually start trying to avoid committing mass negligent homicide.
Never profits. Has to be revenue.
Companies and legally hide profits and show losses on their balance sheets whereas revenues are much easier to calculate and harder to hide.
Well that's a separate issue that we ALSO need to solve: closing all avenues of tax avoidance via legal fraud, basically
If I'm running a business, 100% of its earnings will be paid out. Any earnings I haven't previously allocated will be paid out as bonuses. My workers and I will all have income from that business, but the business itself will never show a single penny in profit.
That's not fraud. That's not "tax avoidance". That should be the objective of every responsible business: paying out every earned cent to the people who created those earnings.
It's also pretty easy to implement: Set corporate income taxes at 100%, and the effective corporate income tax rate fall to zero. No business will hold back any profits; everything will be paid out.
Parent comment is correct: Fines cannot be a percentage of profit. They could, conceivably, be a percentage of revenue, but that's not particularly good either: Any action you take on the cashflow within the business disproportionately affects the workers and customers of the business.
Whatever actions we take must target the owners and managers. The decision makers. The people responsible for setting policy, not the people carrying out that policy. That means we don't touch the profits or the revenue. We dilute their shares. For every 19 outstanding shares, we create a new one and put it in an IRS liquidation portfolio. Now we own 5% of the company, and we auction those shares off to the general public over time. The existing shareholders lose ~5% of their value, and are incentivized to hold their management team accountable for their losses.
we need a corporate death penalty also, thats not steered by the need for jobs. We need to reform capitalism itself. The current iteration doesnt work.
we need a corporate death penalty also
I would say that the corporate equivalent of the death penalty is seizure of the corporation, which is pretty much what I'm talking about. Issue "share" fines constituting 50% + 1 of the ownership, and the former company no longer exists. Its assets are now yours to control.
it's almost like they should, I dunno, make a regulation or something that says power lines must be underground or something.
what a poor country, they really should start to developed civilisation there, its worth it.
Only the Left Coast burns, so this administration is fine with that.
For now.
In a 2022 analysis, the publication said that, by 2052, half the people at risk of wildfire will live in the South.
They won’t care until it’s them burning.
I wonder if anyone cares about or respects anyone else anymore, even in the same neighborhood. We're also raising a generation of future adults in this stew of hatreds.
Americans are crabs on a bucket. Of all the westernized countries I think they have one of the worst senses of civic, and social, duty and responsibility.
Nah, Florida does too. But at one point in time they were good about prescribed burns. Nothing stinks quite like a swamp fire.
Smokies dead. Just ask the orange tumor what the south african told him to do?
surely laying off fire protection agency officials during historic droughts brought by ever worsening climate change won't have any negative impact.
I can't wait to hear how this is good actually and if it isn't it's the Democrats fault.
Do we really want to prevent forest fires? Suppressing fires accumulates fuel, which leads to more severe wildfires. Natural records show North American forest fires naturally occurred with regularity, and we're at a deficit.
Several articles out there on this. A few
We want to run prescribed burns when it's wet, and suppress the high-intensity fires that destroy everything. Both actions require trained fire crews.
Yeah but they want more fires to blame on DEI and the democrats.
Not only that, periodic wildfires are a critical component in some ecosystems. I live near a an ecosystem that relies on prescribed burns from the Forest Service in order to keep it in shape. Before the FS was a thing our local Indigenous tribes were the ones doing these burns and maintaining the land. Letting it run wild would put us in a similar situation to the Western US, on top of the invasive species outperforming and choking out the native ones.
"This is fine"
It's funny because this meme is about 8 years old.
RFK Jr. dumped Smokey's corpse in central park.
It was proven forest fires are caused by dei...
/S
Meanwhile, Guantanamo prepares to deploy free labor the likes of which no one alive today has ever seen before!... Only read about on books about slavery.
The whole "Smokie" program was a massive failure. The fire fighters loss is horrible but don't do them dirty by comparing them to the forest fire equivalent to the D.A.R.E program.
Its been said in another comment but in case you don't see it: https://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159373691/how-the-smokey-bear-effect-led-to-raging-wildfires
I responded to it:
We want to run prescribed burns when it’s wet, and suppress the high-intensity fires that destroy everything. Both actions require trained fire crews.
It's only called the smokey bear effect, this is a sprawl and nimby problem.
Many fire experts embrace controlled, or "prescribed," fires — purposely set fires that do the cleanup job that small natural fires once did. It takes the tinder out of the tinder box.
But people have built homes and towns close to forests; they don't like the smoke, and prescribed burns sometimes get out of control.
Allowing controlled burns is a whole separate issues than smokey bear telling people to put out their camp fires and not throw cigarettes into dry leaves...
Oh the smokie program had a lot more going on then that. It was more the change in how forests where managed that did the damage. Smokie is just the spokesbear.