Not in the Blue Bag nor the Red Bag: More Thoughts on TSW Moderation

I spent more time that you would think trying to get this right using AI but I couldn’t, explanation below.

Reflecting on the past week, it seems like it’s very difficult to separate the specific issue we’re dealing with from the overall perspective of this Admin and its intent (thought by some to be unequivocally bad). I don’t remember having the same problem in the past. We could disagree about, say, the Public Lands Rule, note that people as diverse as PERC and some ENGOs were against it, and yet didn’t dive into who funds either group, or back up to how that matches with the Center for American Progress’s policy agenda.

At the same time, funding of people who put out documents or research is interesting, and relevant, and we can’t not talk about it. And equally at the same time, we know that say, Headwaters Economics generally has a point of view different from that of, say, PERC. So it might get tedious to talk about that every time we mention the group that puts out a study or news release. Still, everyone who gets paid has some kind of angle, so there’s that.

Let’s take the climate website issue. Apparently the memo was leaked to some outlets, but we are unable to get a copy, so we actually don’t know what it said. We could trace the memo and the apparent reaction and whether it makes sense to us or not. I think we all pretty much agree that while it is a symbolic act of some kind, it’s not a good idea. So we could move on from there. It seems to me that we are going to have many of these in the future (ideas of questionable value from the new Admin) and if every time we go back to Project 2025 or the Federalist Society, it might also get tedious. Granted, yesterday that was partially my fault for posting that part of Andy’s interview. Mea culpa.

The way I look at it is that there are many ideas out there. It’s like the two bags in the graphic. Some ideas are currently in the blue Democratic bag, some are in the currently Republican bag. Who determines what’s in each bag? People with political power of various kinds, and we can safely say.. not us. Then there is the plain burlap, ideas from groups outside the current red or blue bags, and finally just ideas from the rest of us, think tanks, citizens and others. Of course, within each bag are different groups jockeying to determine which ideas are in and which ones are out. As an observer, I think the pundits have it wrong when they say that people in the blue sack have moved to the red sack. They have simply rejected the content of the blue sack and decided to make their own way. I could write more about that, but not here. Certainly what’s in and out of each bag changes through time, as do people.

Sometimes, and I like to highlight these, Ds and Rs in Congress agree. I like to see people with different views working together toward our common good. Nevertheless, without being cynical, sometimes bi=partisan simply means “you get your pork/grift and I get mine, and it all balances out.” To everyone but the taxpayer, of course, who are footing the bill for pork mountains. So there’s always a need to examine these deals closely as well.

In my view, the role of The Smokey Wire is to, within our relatively small area of federal lands and forests, examine all the ideas produced by anyone and try to figure out if we (individuals) think that they are wholesome grains or rocks or chaff that gums up the works. To change analogies, each of us gets to make our own necklace of policy choices and in many cases, these won’t fit neatly into a particular set of ideas that unknown parties have put in the red or blue bag. Our role is to highlight the pros and cons of picking that particular bead for our individual policy necklaces. The point is to inform, and to share views about specific topics. Not to lecture or to castigate, which I grant is partially a tone thing.

After some reflection, I notice that some people here seem to want to go farther and bring in Project 2025 or USAID. I wonder if that’s because people really want to hear other opinions and at TSW they know they’re privy to folks hearing news and views from all kinds of sources. Maybe people who are despairing about the election really want to hear from people who are not despairing because while we are not in the blue sack, we are not in the red sack either.

For me, I won’t let anyone else select things for my policy necklace. I would like to hear from readers, here in the comments or at my email sharon at forestpolicypub.com. Because, after this week’s experimentation, I’m going to tighten up a bit more for The Smokey Wire and return to the prior focus. If people really want to talk about the other stuff, and hear from folks with different views, I can host that discussion on my Substack. So that’s a possibility.

Anyway, we actually missed quite a bit of non-new Admin news. We also haven’t looked at some of the actions of the last Admin that deserve a closer look. So next week we’ll be back to that. Please let me know what you think!

New Administration: Need for Moderation Policy Experiment

I understand that the new Admin has raised a great many fears and anxieties, as well as hopes, among the population here in the US. There’s a wide panoply of actions the new Admin has taken or attempted to take, or saber-rattled about, just in the last few weeks. Hoping to return to a non-moderated space, I listened to Jon’s concern that this requires something different of us and reflected/prayed/thought about what to do. How can we have open minds, open hearts, be curious and learn from each other, without going into generic what feels like “hate and fear” space? The more I reflected, the more I thought that we can’t strictly stay away from the political, but we can stick to a spirit of appreciative inquiry (that’s a term from the environmental conflict resolution literature) and not generalized castigation.

Below are my predictions for this Admin. My experiences with Admins over time has brought me the lesson of deep humility.
********
The Admin will have good ideas and bad ideas, within our area of interest, and with regard to other kinds of policies. We will disagree among ourselves as to whether these are good or bad ideas.

Here and there, they will pick good appointees and well.. less good appointees from our points of view. Some we will agree are good or bad, and others we will disagree about, just as we did in the last three Admins. We may well be surprised by how they actually perform compared to what we thought, although most of us won’t have direct experience dealing with them.

Congress and the Courts will weigh in to keep some of these ideas from being implemented, regardless of whether we consider them good or bad. Indeed, regardless of whether we contact our Congressfolk and weigh in.

Some policies will be implemented well, and some poorly. The spectrum is likely to be.. no, it’s fine the way it is; yes it needs change, but not that change; yes it needs change, but not via that mechanism; yes it needs change, and that mechanism might work, but they are implementing it too quickly.

At the end of the four years, we’ll have some idea of how it all worked out. I would guess in some areas things will be better, in other areas things will be worse. But we’ll disagree about better and worse, and how important the different areas are.

But I don’t know, you don’t know and pundits and the media don’t know how the story will turn out, for our own area, or others.

*************

Our goal here is to have discussions of the ideas, policies and implementation from a wide diversity of views and experiences.
We need to stick to the topic and not more general issues. This is a slippery slope, for sure.

Here’s an example:
I wonder why Fix our Forests bill lost the part about the arbitration pilot?
vs.
Congress is a bunch of scum-sucking sleazeballs beholden to special interests.

We need to be respectful of each other and to some extent, people who are not here. This is also a slippery slope.

I’ve argued for this, with a notable lack of success thus far. So we’re going to try something different. For the next week or so, I am going to moderate all comments. It’s not fair, when there are many gray areas and slippery slopes, to ask a bunch of us to make calls on this the same way. And if we didn’t moderate the same way, it wouldn’t be fair to you commenters. The downside of this is that approval of comments won’t happen as quickly, so I ask for your patience. I’ve pointed out the two slippery slopes above, but at the end of the day, we want to hear your views and why you hold them. At the beginning, I’m probably going to be a bit stricter, to force a bit of a reset.

Hopefully, this will be only needed in the short term.

If you have heard of something you would like covered and discussed here, use the tab on top (at least on computers and tablets) New Topics or Questions and we will discuss it. There are many things coming out from the new Admin and elsewhere now, maybe too many to cover here, so I need your help.

I believe that we can do this thing.. we can make it together through this time as a community focused on learning from each other, in an atmosphere of curiosity and mutual respect.

Meet Division With Imagination: Joint Inauguration and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

 

I think it’s fairly rare that Inauguration Day and the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday fall on the same day.

Some folks are elated by the Inauguration and the changes on the horizon. Other folks are depressed and despairing. What I’ve come to know over the last year of being in independent space, is that peoples’ views are much more complex than the standard divisions of right/left, Democrat/Republican and so on. Many people were frustrated with the Presidential choices we had and either tried to run themselves (RFK,Jr) or to get on the ballot with a unity ticket (No Labels). And even within the people at No Labels, there was a wide diversity of policy views. Outside No Labels, there were Bernie-ites, who turned to RFK-ites, who ultimately voted for Trump.

Many pundits called this “a turn to the right.” I don’t actually think so. I think numerous Ds and independents felt that their relationship with the DNC was like an abusive personal relationship. There was gaslighting,e.g. “you’re crazy, Biden is sharp as a tack!”, and court cases to keep RFK, Jr. and No Labels off the ballot. It reminded me of churches a bit “pray, pay and obey” without the praying part. Politicians probably believe they are right; and also, of more concern, that the end (staying in power) justifies the means (whatever low-down approaches they can think of).

As our 19th century pundit friends said:

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right

H. L. Mencken,

and Mark Twain

Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.

Rather than by politicians, who do what they do, I think that we were let down by many media outlets, who chose to become lapdogs rather than watchdogs. But in the end, that was OK, because we got in the habit of hearing directly from the source and thinking for ourselves.

Dr. King was a fan of peace. One quote that might be appropriate for us here at this time is:

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

What I learned from last year was that we (across any political spectrum) disagree about many policy issues than forests, federal lands and climate change. But if have a deeper conversation, you find out that their views most often don’t match a specific party.  The Trump Admin is a coalition of unique individuals who have different ideas about many things. So maybe it’s time for us to band together in a spirit of cooperation to try to understand their views. In some sense, we already do that here.

I am intentionally going to try to assume the best of intentions of the new Admin.  I’m going to try to get their side of the story.  This is based on the idea of judging others favorably.

We are not only to judge favorably, but to believe in the explanations that we devise as well. What you may consider to be an absurd justification may turn out to be the truth!

Rabbi Zvi Feldman (1907-1976)

In the book Every Day, Holy Day by Alan Morinis, the chapter is on judging others favorably, and the daily phrase is “there’s another side to the story.” Many times I have contacted the Forest Service or other organizations to hear their side of the story, and that is the best way (straight from the horse’s mouth). But I have no “ins” with anyone in the new Admin, so I guess I will have to use my imagination and whatever the media folks come up with, and whatever context TSW-ites can lend, and try to reverse engineer their side of the story. As an independent, I am skeptical of all Admins, but I think we should be open-minded about them and the changes they want to make. So it may sound as if I am “on their side”, but that’s just me trying to figure them out and trying to judge their intentions favorably.

What we are about together is first the truth of what’s going on. Often, if enough of us pool our knowledge, we can figure it out. Then based on our knowledge, experience and values, we can disagree, and sometimes find agreement among those who usually don’t. Some of us may be able to influence policy, but many of us don’t have those connections. So this is the best we can offer, truth and understanding of each other, and attempting to decrease the net hate in this country.

Here’s what Jennifer Pahlka wrote on her Substack today:

Cancer has been my metaphor before. The unchecked growth of policy, process, and procedure that compounds over time and strangles our government’s ability to act in the public interest is much like a cancer. When I wrote that, I believed my cancer would be excised with surgery and that would be it. Now chemo is my metaphor. It seems we may go through some scary and even dangerous changes. But I believe there is something better on the other side of this for our country, too.

Here’s more of what I wrote eight years ago:

Most importantly, remember, the status quo isn’t worth protecting. It’s so easy to be in reaction, on the defensive, fighting for the world we had yesterday. Fight for something better, something we haven’t seen yet, something you have to invent. Find a thousand collaborators. Include people you disagree with. Meet division with imagination.

I’m with Jennifer on that.

Happy 15th to TSW! A Likely-to -be Challenging Year Ahead and Contributions Requested

MS AI image generator.. I don’t know why he’s smoking nor why his name isn’t correct (copyright?), nor why th has two ts.  AI- bad quality but cheaper than humans.

I noticed sometime in the last few weeks that TSW and its predecessor, New Century of Forest Planning, have now been around for 15 years.  What I’ve noticed through time is that the currents of media have swirled around in different ways, but we remain fairly unique.  I spend some time on Substack and TwitX, and there are algorithms that determine what you see, even (apparently) if you click on the tab that says “following”; as in the people you want to follow.  Here, what you see is what you get. Certainly you don’t have to read posts by people you generally disagree with, but many of us do. And comment.

If I were to characterize my point of view it would be seeking the truth (even though we disagree about what it is and its implications), with an attitude of curiosity and skepticism.  That was the culture I absorbed as a 70’s and 80’s science student. Critiquing someone’s study plan was considered a sign of respect and a way to make it better.   Our profs worked with us as the ultimate source of what should be done, mediating disputes, and having the final say.

Here at TSW, we are exploring ideas and observations in a safe space with people (mostly) committed to taking the time to understand each other’s views and what those views are based on.   Various entities have been promoted as authorities during the last 15 years, some including reporters and scientists (but not others).   Time has shown that often not only have feet of straw, but some sought to destroy the reputations of those who questioned or disagreed.

Other, more philosophical folks, have said that giving everyone a voice, via platforms like TwitX, is the once every 500 years equivalent of the printing press, making more information available to ordinary people without a filter.  Now I know that European religious history is not being taught much these days, so let’s just say that there were powerful institutions that resisted simple things we take for granted today, like having the Bible in English.   And yet, humans ultimately survived the hundreds of years transition of the old order being overturned, even though there was horrendous violence along the way.  Institutions, bless their hearts, do much good in the world.   At the same time (both things are true), government agencies, universities, media and other corporations, foundations, NGO’s, religious institutions, political parties, seek to maintain and grow their perceived or real power and financial status; often at the expense of hiding negative things and even, sometimes, of shading or hiding the truth.   Survival is #1, for both humans and their institutions.  Right now, media has a business model problem, and many outlets are paid by people who want to see some things highlighted and other things not addressed.  We can see the problems with this when a story about something we understand gets a superficial or biased treatment from a reporter who has to move on to sports or to the Mideast tomorrow.  The outlets mostly can’t afford anyone to take the time to dig in.  It’s the closest distance to the nearest narrative.. but that system is breaking down. Then there’s the business model of promoting clicks via instigating outrage. It’s (past) time for another approach, and perhaps folks with expertise, like us and The Hotshot Wakeup are pioneering a different approach, with more expertise and  less filtering. The energy space is full of folks like this. Then there are newer growing outlets like the Cowboy State Daily and The Free Press.

In a way, what we do is “joint fact-finding” a conflict resolution tool; in a way it is building a community of curious, open-minded, skeptics.  Sometimes people call each other names, it’s true, but not that often.  It is interesting to me that there is no funding for this kind of work.  Yes, in our case, maybe information doesn’t have to go through reporters and their institutions to get to the public.  My original intention was something like Extension for landowners only for forest policy. Even then, the institution (USDA public affairs) saw it as freelancing public affairs. Here, we seek to open up informational boxes and paw through them together, rather than delivering boxes all wrapped up with our favorite wrap.  That’s why the diversity of thought here is so important.

And so we seek, here, together, from our various sources, to figure out what’s really going on.  At that point, we often disagree about whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, or would best be done differently.  We don’t just lob hateful comments at each other, but tell about why we think something based on experience, data or whatever. It’s all open.  Again, those philosophically inclined think that open dialogue is the best way to develop policy, I can’t find the related quotes right now but maybe Anonymous the Philosopher can point to them (de Tocqueville?).People from all sides agree that we need better discourse, in fact it’s becoming popular say that (and build new institutions to promote it).

Then there’s the leadership/management community.

When should you invite dialogue? There are three situations where it can help:

  1. When you want to understand different perspectives: Inviting dialogue is a great way to gather different perspectives and gain a deeper understanding of a situation or issue. By actively seeking input from others, you can gain a more well-rounded view of the situation and make more informed decisions. Don’t be afraid to reach out or think that you don’t have time to consult.
  2. When you want to build relationships: Inviting dialogue can help you build stronger relationships with your team, peers, and other colleagues. When you actively seek input from others, you are demonstrating that you value their opinions and perspectives. This can help to build trust and credibility. It’s also helpful for others to understand more about how you think, so reach out, share, and build bridges by connecting diverse ideas where you can.
  3. When you want to resolve conflict: Dialogue can be a powerful tool for resolving conflicts and finding mutually beneficial solutions. By inviting dialogue, you can open up lines of communication and encourage collaboration to find a resolution that works for everyone. If you develop a track record for adding value by doing this, you’ll be in demand!

In a way, what we do is like  “joint fact-finding” which can be part of a conflict resolution approach, yet in another way it is building a community of curious, open-minded, skeptics.  Sometimes people call each other names, it’s true.  It is interesting to me that there is no funding for this kind of work, and in fact TSW doesn’t even pay for itself, as you can see,  donations provided over half of needed this year.  At the same time, I deeply appreciate all the non-cash contributions of knowledge, answers to questions, and guest posts.  Especially in those fields I don’t understand, like budget (Andy) and legal stuff (Rich J. and SJ).

I think that the next year will bring us challenges and opportunities.   One thing I hope to do is develop a standard set of  “ways Admins (should) behave.”  If we’re not careful, we’ll get a one-sided view of various things the next Admin will do, possibly as if that’s the first time anyone ever did it, when it’s actually common practice.  Recently, it was “contracting out is bad, but giving money to NGOs to contract out is good.”  Some of this requires a certain distance and historical knowledge, which we older folks can bring to the table.  We certainly need the voices of people currently working as well, as viewing from the outside is always different.  And young people bring a fresh set of eyes, so there’s that. And not just younger workers but students, for whom TSW was originally intended.

As St. Benedict of Nursia said in his Rule (around 530 CE):

And we have thus said that all are to be called to council because it is often to a junior that the Lord reveals what is best.

We older folks have valuable wisdom and experience, and should also be open to the fact that things are different now and what didn’t work in the past is only one source of information.

I think what we’re seeing more broadly is a partial breakdown of the “Our Political Party Does Everything Right” story, and through the cracks, with the help of platforms like TwitX and Substack,  some light is pouring in, illuminating the real choices and trade-offs we need to make as a nation. I hope that TSW, and we all together, will contribute to that light.

I also think that there will be stronger attempts by some to retain control and more hype and hate and anger generation, and prediction of bad things that might happen, which coincidentally is good for fund-raising.  So it’s more important than ever for us to be here.

Two final thoughts about our anniversary: (1) I’d still appreciate financial contributions (remember, we are not a 501c3 so not tax-deductible, though we are not averse to an organization that would provide fiscal sponsorship)  and (2) I’m going to start rerunning what I consider to be classics from the last 15 years, if you have a favorite, let me know.

Thanks and Happy New Year to all!

Invitation to Write a Post, Posting Break, and SAF Convention

It’s cone collection season…  Shout out to all the folks, contract, coop agreement, and force account, collecting cones this year!

*************

All- I will be on a posting break for the next two weeks.  On this break, I’ll still have time to post the work of others, and to comment.  So if you have an interesting story or question or hypothesis about something  that you would like to share, this would be a great time to do it.   Please send your thoughts to me (sharon) at forestpolicypub.com.

There are many of you out there from whom I’d like to hear more outside of the comment format.  My thought is that if you can write a thoughtful comment, you could also write a post.  It would open the knowledge, experience, topics and stories far beyond those of the current contributors.

Also, next week, I’ll be volunteering at the SAF Convention in Loveland, Colorado.  If you’d like to chat, also send an email to the above address.

Again, please consider writing a piece for The Smokey Wire! Not just in the next two weeks of course.

 

Friday Fun: Chat with Google Gemini on The Smokey Wire and Related Topics

I know that given what folks have heard about Google Gemini, you are curious about its take on The Smokey Wire. I posted it below. Of course, Google knows that I am me, so maybe it tailored its response to be nice.  Maybe others would like to try? Here’s a link.

Feel free to ask it questions on our kinds of topics and post in the comments. Here’s what it told me.

The Smokey Wire is a community-sourced online platform focused on news and views related to Forest Service and public lands policy in the United States [1].expand_more

Here are some key points about The Smokey Wire:

  • Mission: To facilitate open dialogue and information sharing among various stakeholders involved in public lands management, including practitioners, the public, and academic and scientific communities [3].
  • Content: The platform features articles, discussions, and resources on diverse topics related to wildfire management, forest health, wildlife conservation, and recreation on public lands [2, 4, 5].expand_more
  • Source of information: While not directly affiliated with the Forest Service, it serves as a platform for sharing perspectives and promoting collaboration on issues related to public lands management [3].expand_more

Overall, The Smokey Wire serves as a valuable resource for staying informed and engaged in discussions about the management and use of public lands in the United States.

I don’t know if people have read about Matt Taibbi’s experience with Gemini but I can only hope that The Smokey Wire stays under their “let’s make stuff up that’s negative” radar screen. Oops. I wonder if it’s absorbing this post into its maw of information?

Update, A Few TSW Notes, A PSA and a Volunteer Opportunity

FS Program Community Navigators- More Info Coming

One of our Anonymous folks asked about a program called “Community Navigators” that showed up on the FS LinkedIn site. I asked the WO Media Office and they said the announcement is coming out soon with more information. Hopefully someone will let me know and I can post about it, as I don’t read the FS LinkedIn feed.

Management Note:  What I think are AI Comments Thwarted; if They’re Yours, Let Me Know

We have had some comments from various entities which strike me as possible AI comments, to what end I have no idea.  They seem impersonal,  add no particular value and have an air of knowing about things that are, in reality, contested.   So,  I make a judgment call and delete them.  If I am mistaken about your comment, please contact me directly via email (see donate widget).  Then I will use Real Human Intelligence to change my personal algorithm.

TSW (at least this contributor) Has Lost Access to E&E News for Now

Sadly, we’ve had a breakdown on E&E News, my favorite outlet.  The generous ENGO who was forwarding stuff had their subscription raised to $1700 a year, which they can’t afford.  I am exploring alternative means of access (volunteering with the FS or other entities who have subscriptions?).  Meanwhile if you do get it and see something  interesting, please forward the link, so at least we know that there is an interesting story out there even if we can’t access it.

Public Service Announcement on Accessing Paywalled News

Since that happened, I’ve learned some things about accessing paywalled news that you might find helpful

    1. Local libraries often have digital access to newspapers.  Some including the NY Times.  Worth a check if you run into a paywall.  I now have cards at three county library systems, all of which have different ways of accessing different news outlets digitally.  And the most recent was just by walking in to a library (in a county I don’t live) and asking for a card.
    2. You can use archive.is where many news stories that are paywalled are saved.

Volunteer Wanted to Dig Into Project on Chequamegon-Nicolet

I received an email (as a media person) from the Environmental Law and Policy Center about violations of the timber sale contract on the Sunfish Timber Sale in the Fourmile Project Area on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin. It’s a Good Neighbor Authority (misspelled God Neighbor Sales  in the powerpoint) sale and it looks like thinning from the powerpoint. They are concerned about contractors working over-snow as in the contract, and claim that some cut trees violate the “proposed” old growth definition by diameter, and maybe the intent of the MOG executive order?

Here’s a link to the powerpoint. Anyone who lives in the area and wants to investigate further, please let me know.

Thanks to TSW Supporters, A Few The Smokey Wire Tidbits and Volunteer Requests

Contribute to The Smokey Wire.
Receive bear hug.

 

A special thanks to all of those who make TSW possible, via funding and other contributions!  We wouldn’t be here without you.

First point, we did not really get 20K in donations, as the current widget says.. it turns out that scammers steal credit card info and try to figure out if they are real by attempting to donate online.  Aren’t people creative?  Needless to say, I have to go back in and check hundreds of quasi-donations for reality.  Last guess, prior to the influx of fake donations,  was that we didn’t make our goal of $1000 last year.  I didn’t want to bug people at the end of the year when they are doing their pre-tax donations, but when you get around to it, please consider a donation.  Note that we are not a 501c3 so donations aren’t tax deductible.

In addition to paying various WordPress charges, and our amazing folks at Cloud Nine Web Support, I subscribe to various news outlets (WaPo, NY Times, LA Times) and Substacks, and even recently paid Twitter to get fewer obnoxious ads.  These are all going up, and I’m expecting 2024 to require at least $1500 to keep us going.

We also have two potential volunteer opportunities.

(1) Analyzing PALS extract of CEs.  It seems to me it would be fun for different people to look at these data and see what they make of it.  What I’ve got is totals by Region and category for two five-year periods, simply asking the question “is the FS using more CE’s over time? If so, which Regions are using which ones?” I looked at the data and thought “this would an opportunity for open  analysis and peer review” and asked a couple of university folks. They old me that they couldn’t do it (or have it be a grad student project) without funding.  And I could write a pre-proposal to write a proposal.  If that $20K were real…  Anyway, anyone, students, retirees, those currently working, who are interested, please let me know and we can collaborate on this analysis.

(2) Virtual fencing post (that’s a post about fencing, not a fence post).  Turns out that the Santa Fe is working with virtual fencing as a pilot with partners and offered to answer questions. This would be a fun post to write for someone interested in learning about this.  Maybe a field trip and photos or video?

And if you want to volunteer to write posts on other topics, or have other ideas, please email me (sharon) at forestpolicypub.com.

TSW Kelly Martin Presentation Video and New Tab for Discussions of Moderation on TSW

Many thanks again to Kelly Martin for making herself available for a presentation on the Wildfire Commission Report last Friday! And thanks to all who attended and participated.

We had an interesting discussion afterwards, in which  members of the group disagreed on some things (e.g. around the use of beneficial wildfire) and agreed on others (developing affordable housing for firefighters).  One of my favorite moments was toward the end of the video, when Kelly talks about her passions for this work, and why she continues working on these issues in retirement.  I’m sure she articulated how many of us feel and can’t express nearly as well.

I’m hoping the video will work for those who couldn’t attend. It’s posted here. Please comment below if it doesn’t work for you.

Also, The Hotshot Wakeup did an interview with Kelly and the podcast also well worth a listen.

On today’s show, I welcome Kelly Martin to discuss the new Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission’s report to Congress, everything happening with the workforce, legislation, and beneficial fire.

The Presidential Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission was established in 2022. Kelly was one of 500 applicants who applied to voluntarily serve on this 50-member Commission. She was selected to fill the primary seat representing Wildland Firefighters.

Kelly’s 35-year federal career as a wildland firefighter provided invaluable technical and subject matter expertise to the Commission, ultimately obtaining unanimous consensus on comprehensive workforce reforms (see recommendations 84-103 in the Commission report).

*************

Comment Moderation- New Tab

I don’t get to read everyone’s comments, but I have noted a couple of requests for moderation.  So I made another tab above labelled “Moderation Requests and Discussion” so I can find them.  Please put all such comments there or a link to the moderation comments you’ve already made. I do want to respond but I want to be more or less consistent, and I want to be able to find them all. Thank you!

TSW Proposed Guideline: Can We Leave Intention Out of Our Discussions?

Mike, Jim and Jon were discussing a topic yesterday that I want to dig into a bit, because I think it has a broader context, one about intention.

Mike questioned two of Jim’s cites. One was about the Sea Change funding and one was about the Rocky Mountain Institute and its funding from the Chinese.  My view is that generally, people don’t accept money to do things they disagree with (unless you’re an employee).  So is money really an important thing to track?

Let’s take three energy examples. Often a person can read that say Senator Manchin is “in the pockets of fossil fuel companies.”  But I ask, is it chicken or egg? If a person supports a policy, then organizations that support the policy will like to fund that person.

Just looking around randomly, EDF Action Fund (Environmental Defense) spent $171K for Senator Murkowski’s 2022 win. Do we think that that contribution changed her mind about anything?

Then there’s wind and solar..  the Open Secrets website says.. “Of partisan contributions, 76 percent went to Democrats, who want to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.”

Again, this sounds like industries (and ideological folks) support people who want to foster their industries or ideologies.  I suppose if a Congressperson or Senator is lukewarm, a large contribution might make them feel more warm and fuzzy toward a given industry or point of view.  Maybe it happens.

Let’s go back to Sea Change and Rocky Mountain Institute, they both have donations from sources we may say are questionable. But we will never know if they have changed their point of view based on this part of their funding. Then there’s this (obviously the far-left designation means the source report is biased, but are the observations they made true?)

Sea Change Foundation/Klein Ltd. Pass Through Illustration. Original credit, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Original URL: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6ce8dd13-e4ab-4b31-9485-6d2b8a6f6b00/chainofenvironmentalcommand.pdf

Do the Simons invest in renewables because they believe in them, or do they invest in ENGO’s who want to get rid of competitors like oil and gas because of their underlying beliefs or to support the industries they’ve invested in? More chickens and eggs.  And to complicate things, currently nat gas electric generation is quite compatible and without large-scale battery capability, necessary as a backup to wind and solar because it’s relatively easy to power up and down. You can see the natgas/wind/solar compatibility in these graphs from across the country the last four days. That’s one of the reasons Sierra Club supported nat gas. .. until they didn’t. Supposedly because some chapters didn’t like it; but other chapters don’t like wind..

My original point wasn’t that people who want to get rid of domestic production of fossil fuels are funded by what we might gently term “non-supportive nation-states.”  My point was rather “if we can’t distinguish these proposed “keep it in the ground” policies from those of non-supportive nation-states, shouldn’t we ask why that is and have that open dialogue with those holding those views somewhere? Maybe it’s just my personal laziness-perusing 990s makes my eyes glaze over. And if we go into the funding question, we have to go within the complex minds of politicians as to whether they are “bought off” or just “supported by folks who agree with them.”

It seems to me that we are unlikely to delve into their psychology in any meaningful way.  So I think we should stick to actions and writing,  not intentions.

***************

Similarly, (not to pick on Mike, as I’ve used this term in the past, as have others),  I’d like to do away with the terms misinformation, disinformation and malinformation for the purposes of The Smokey Wire.

I’m always leery of new words entering the lexicon.. if, as our old friend, the author of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), says, “there is nothing new under the sun” chances are we won’t really need new words.   I think simply saying “I don’t think that’s true, based on..” will take care of it.  The whole misinformation movement seems a bit cloudy.  For example, I looked up the definition of it on Google. It said “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.” So, whoa! We’ve gotten back into reading other peoples’ intentions again.

When people make up new words or abstractions, I am suspicious that there is an underlying purpose that doesn’t involve my input. Here’s what the American Psychological Association (second on my Google search) has to say and yes, I noticed it doesn’t match the Google definition:

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.

The spread of misinformation and disinformation has affected our ability to improve public health, address climate change, maintain a stable democracy, and more. By providing valuable insight into how and why we are likely to believe misinformation and disinformation, psychological science can inform how we protect ourselves against its ill effects.

And yet, people have been giving out misinformation and disinformation (however defined) since we learned to sign, and somehow Homo sapiens has managed to muddle through.

As to falsehood.. let’s face it – most of us, most of the time are not going to do the investigation to figure out where we come out based on our own review of 990s.  Most of the topics we cover are complex, conditional in time and space, and oftentimes it’s difficult to discern what is true.  In the words of Politifact, with regard to the Rocky Mountain Institute:

The institute is working with the Chinese government to reduce carbon emissions, but experts say that characterizing this as “ties” to the Communist Party lacks important context.

So there are facts, but they can be stated in such a way that they lack “important context.” Maybe we’ll never arrive at the ultimate truth?  Or maybe there isn’t one truth. I’m sure Anonymous would have the relevant philosophical citations. On a more pragmatic level..

Say Amira says to Javier “that’s misinformation”.  Amira is implying that either Javier is a doofus who’s been misinformed or that he has ill intentions to misnform others.  Or maybe both.  We should be able to challenge each others facts and perceptions without implying anything negative about each other.

So here are my suggested substitutions.

That’s disinformation..  = These sources, or my experience, say something different.

That’s been debunked. =  These sources, or my experience, say something different.

See how easy that is?