While Colorado burns

This sits on tarmac in Arizona..



It has well over twice the capacity of the C-130's in use. And half the cost per gallon delivered.

Why? Because the company that owns and operates it doesnt meet US Forest Service contracting guidelines.
These are the same people you want doing what's best for you...

via: Anthony Watts

 

I believe what Petty is attempting to do is bring common sense and logic back to the forefront. You can call it trashing or ranting but I call it love and caring about the greater good. I sometimes struggle to understand his arguments, probably because I dont follow politics but I consider that my failing. I'm happy to read the opinions of either of you any day of the week. But seriously Don you cant defend the government on this. Did you defend W when the US wouldnt allow survival packages donated from Germany in the wake of hurricane kartrina because they didnt meet US regulations?

 

What I would like to know is how Don's comment relates to other threads in which there may end up government services as 'single source' and what checks there may be on malfeasance and corruption within those organizations.
Where is the 'democratic governance'?

Evidently NOT from regular Joe's.. that would be 'anti-government'. If it's in the NYT or WaPo, is that acceptable?

I guess Don doesnt recall my diatribes against 'Big AgriCorp' ADM and Cargill. Or perhaps he does.. up till the point our corn-belt government elected teabagged the corp executives for campaign funding.
What is obvious from the direct and indirect links including the Evergreen Statement is that this is the result of 'Good Intentions' perverted by hidebound bureaucracy. There is IN FACT NO private sector alternative to the US Forest Service and we must rely on government for fire fighting.

But to the religious/idealogue there is no logic permissible. And all criticism is 'hate speech', whether from Limbaugh or anyone else.

One more thought.. before I posted it, did ANYONE reading this thread know about it? I didn't, until a few minutes before.
So I guess the real questions are
'Does the public have a right to know about it?'
Should the one bringing it up be attacked as 'anti-government'?

 

That is from Evergreen's statement. They did get the trial CWN contract, but it wasn't profitable if the plane wasn't used. He goes further and says it won't be profitable unless they get an exclusive use contract.

That makes me wonder how a private sector solution would have worked better seeing as it would be more profit driven (although likely w less red tape) than the govt option. And what in this piece tells us that it is a cheaper option? Other than the blogger who provides nothing to back it up other than...an ad from Evergreen and, well it worked in Mexico and Israel, under CWN's that they could afford at that time.

Also from Evergreen's statement. I don't see anything giving the why's behind these regs. Is there a safety issue? Collateral damage done by dropping 4x's as much water? Just govt red tape/outdated regs that no one has bothered re-addressing.

I didn't know about this until you posted it. But here's the problem I have with a blog like this. No link, statement or otherwise from the USFS. It's essentially an ad for Evergreen. I'm not saying the info presented is right, wrong or indifferent, b/c I don't get enough info from it. I can see how it could be construed as an attack piece or armchair quarterbacking.

What is Anthony Watts' agenda. Is it to show examples of, "look, gubmint r stoopid" and push the private sector agenda or is it to inform and offer evidence as to how to fix the areas where govt agencies are inefficient, regardless of whether the fix is private or public?

 

All good questions!

And I'm gonna lay the FIRST answer directly in the lap of Evergreen. Normal Business as Usual contracts aside, this is an exceptional circumstance and they should have contacted the gov't to offer their services for this purpose only. I'm sure something could be worked out at a small profit.

If they had been classed 'Small Business', I think there wouldnt be issues. Now I LIKE the small biz categorical stipulation. Just there's times and places to ignore it.

The reason for the 5000 gal limit is, I suspect, related to facilities to handle the aircraft involved. A loaded C-130 can take off from any 4500- foot runway .. it's built for that. The 747 would need a full length int'l airport length runway.. like Denver.
- That isnt a deal killer though. There's also MIL airbases in fire vicinities, I believe.

Watts is a 'Climate Sceptic' and the bulk of the site is taken up with exposing bad science on the subject. He has a longstanding interest in weather event sells meteorological instrument systems, drives a Prius and has solar installed on his house.

His agenda on this, near as I can tell after reading him for a long time, is the same as mine:
- Fact, not made-up shit.
- Common Sense

 

As someone who has had to evacuate because of fires my thoughts are with the people affected (could be me in Aug.). When it comes to political ramifications, I just hope common sense prevails (stop laughing).