According to The Hill,
“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.
The man is preternaturally stupid. As one who hails from Southern California, I can tell you that fires are caused by some or all of the following factors: large quantities of flammable material (due in part to past successes in fighting fires); California's aridity and propensity for drought; the carelessness of wilderness users; the encroachment of human habitation on forests; the Santa Ana winds; lightning; and arson.
The hot air of a jackass like Reid plays more of a role that any supposed global warming.
But this is not the first time this fool has said something stupid. See Harry Reid Plays the Race Card and The Latest Idiocy from Harry Reid. Hugh Hewitt nails Reid:
Reid is a witless opportunist. Half a million people are evacuated, at least 1,200 homes have been lost so far, federal, state, county and local resources are performing acts of heroism all over California to save lives and property, and Harry Reid wants to blame it on global warming to score political points for his energy bill? What a creep.
And you are still a member of the Jackass party? I got out in '91, and belatedly at that.
To answer your question: We were the classic Reagan Democrats in my family. As a teenager I supported Carter in '76 (living in Ford's hometown of Grand Rapids no less), and four years later I was pulling the lever for Reagan.
As an aside, conservatives can be thankful for the current crop of Democrats running Congress. Since the last election I've been saying that the Democrats will not resist the temptation to succumb to their worst instincts, thus show their true colors to the public. They haven't disappointed me so far.
Alas the Republicans, Bush in particular, are so spineless in opposition that they cannot exploit the political opportunities that the Democrats keep handing them on silver platters.
Regards, Bill T
You saw the light before I did even though it appears you are about ten years younger. My views went from from somewhat liberal to conservative in the '80s, in part from discussions with libertarians. But I soon came to the conclusion that libertarianism is almost as bad as liberalism.
There was a time when being a liberal was respectable, but not any more. JFK, for example, in 1960 would have been labelled a liberal, not a conservative, but now you would have to call him a conservative.
Yes, the current crop of Dems is a sorry lot, which can only be good for conservatives. Unfortunately, Republicans are spineless, as you say.
Then, in 'o3, the infamous "Cedar Fire" was started by a lost hiker trying to signal for help. It spread, again, by high Santa Anna winds.
My local paper has a list of the top fires in California this century. One can easily see that the vast majority have been caused by humans.
See here
I've lived here my entire life. We have always been in a "drought." So, we have always had a danger of fire. Get an idiot to start one at the right time - Santa Anna conditions, which are also accompanied by low humidity - and you have the potential for disaster.
I hope your house was spared. As resident of the area, you know the score. Thanks for the link. Do you have any idea what the penalties for arson are?
Our house was spared, thanks for asking. We lost about 70 in the city I live in. We're about 10 miles away from Rancho Bernardo - one of the areas hit worst.
Regarding the punishment for arson: From what I understand the penalties are varied. There is first, second, third, fourth degree arson. And, various penalties are handed down depending on the effects the arsonist caused. Arson of property. Arson with intent to commit fraud. Arson which results in taking of life. Arson of inhabited or uninhabited structures. Arson of a forest, state park, etc.
So, one could, in theory, get the death penalty because the fire he started - by means of arson - took another's life. Also, sometimes they are caught in the act. We had one guy who was caught masturbating over the fire he started. This got indecent exposure charges added.
It is also hard to prove arson because you have to prove malicious intent. One is not charged with arson if he only burns personal property without the intent to defraud. One could say he was burning his, say, letterman jacket, and it started a fire. if the D.A. could not prove malicious intent, the best they could do is charge the guy with "unlawfully starting a fire."
Anyway, here is a Fox News article which argues that the latest arsons should get the death penalty.
Thanks for that. I agree with the John Gibson piece. Why coddle arsonists?