Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 22, 2017

On the left, the concern with the rights of immigrants, documented and undocumented, contrasts with an apparent indifference to the fate of native-born Americans in places like Clearwater County, Idaho, or Superior, Montana. Disappearing are the debates environmentalists once had about immigration and the impacts of overpopulation. There is not enough discussion of how the millions of marginalized, hungry people in the labor market suppress wages and displace American workers. Some of the staunchest advocates for the public lands seem relatively uninterested in the future management of those lands. And two important questions go almost unasked: Why are so many rural Westerners, surrounded by public lands, some of the harshest critics of the Forest Service? And why are they among the loudest voices calling for transfer of federal lands to the states, or for their outright privatization?




Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Starting in the 70's, the complexity of the argument here is beyond the mental capacity of many on the Centerleft, the massive immigration effects on unskilled labor, communities, and the environment are clearly laid out in this well written article.


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

... the millions of marginalized, hungry people in the labor market suppress wages and displace American workers ...

Perhaps if the Republicans didn't under-fund the Forest Service so much, local workers could be hired on livable wages. it is a standard tactic of the Republicans, under-fund a government entity, then start to complain ceaselessly about that entity not being able to do their tasks.

... why are they among the loudest voices calling for transfer of federal lands to the states ...

Because they have fallen prey to the siren song of the Koch Brothers, who want Federal Land given to the states. Once in the hands of the states, it is then a lot easier for the Koch Brothers to have their way with the land, or even purchase it outright.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-22 10:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yet again Andrea posts garbage worthy only of ad hominem.

The summary is cherry picked to fit your messed up political narrative and your condescending little note is hilarious given the simplicity with which you seem to think.

In any case it's a well written and very balanced article pointing out a slew of problems with forestry management and, in many ways, our current corporate climate at large.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-22 11:04 AM | Reply

---Disappearing are the debates environmentalists once had about immigration and the impacts of overpopulation.

They disappeared years ago. Groups like the Sierra Club once advocated zero population growth, and then got shouted down by the PC Thought Police.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-22 11:32 AM | Reply

Wow, this article strikes close to home. It's time for an anecdote, troopers.

For three summers, 1982 through 1984, I was doing this work. I wasn't a Hoedad, but we all knew a couple of them. We were just a bunch of high school athletes and we did it all: we gathered all the limbs and branches and put them in giant slash piles to reduce the risk of forest fires, we cut fire trail, and we planted a LOT of trees. Don't fool yourself into picturing a landscaper around your house. There is no level ground in that country and it's treacherous even when it isn't raining or icy. It was great: fresh air and sunshine, a decent paycheck, and good buddies to work with. In 1982 and 1983, we had more logging companies requesting our services than we could support. In 1984, we had competition - and none of them spoke English. They had come up to work for the Forest Service doing similar work (USFS wouldn't hire us - we didn't know squat about getting contracts with the government, whereas Hoedad did) and put down roots. Some moved around the state - planting trees for a couple of months, then moving on to pick strawberries or cherries or apples, or baling hay, or whatever. The joke was on them, though. The logging industry got kicked in the nuts a few years later and most of those jobs dried up. Anyhoo...the tale the author is telling is absolutely accurate: these weren't jobs no white man wanted to do - we wanted to do them - we were just pushed out

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-22 11:56 AM | Reply

The Republican Party's platform includes a long-term goal of privatizing public lands. The short-term goal is for the system of public lands not to work; to strangle the budgets and diminish the role of once-proud agencies like the Forest Service, make sure that Western communities do not profit from or engage with the public lands that surround them, ensure a constant level of conflict and uncertainty, and import laborers in areas of high local unemployment. These goals may not be part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but they serve the goal of eventual privatization just as surely as if they were.

Why not focus on that part, Andrea? You know, the part where our Republican party views "governing" as screwing over as many people as possible for as long as necessary in order to give their corporate donors the lands we citizens own, along with all the profits from the resources contained within them.

Anybody who is proud GOP, who supports that kind of party, is scum. Period.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-22 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Forest harvest contractors hire H2B, local communities lose"

Local communities that depend on forestry are already losing. They've been losing ever since NAFTA, and actually since before then, since the Spotted Owl was placed on the Endangered Species list.

Trump would be wise to let them continue losing.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-22 12:03 PM | Reply

"we didn't know squat about getting contracts with the government, whereas Hoedad did"
Whose fault is that?

"we were just pushed out"
No, you weren't. you were outdone by someone who spent the effort and time to know more than you.
In other words, you lost out to someone who was more knowledgeable --- and that is your effin' fault. The fact that non-English speakers know more about contractual procedures than you do is just a sad admission. Embarrassing and typical of the "entitled" who claim they can compete on a level field.

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-22 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7 your reading comprehension sucks. We didn't compete for the USFS contracts, but those were just the guys that brought in the immigrant workers. Once they were in town, they took the jobs supporting private logging outfits from the local kids.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-22 01:41 PM | Reply

"we were just pushed out"
"We didn't compete for the USFS contracts"

make up your mind. sheesh

regardless, your long story short is you were beat out by non-English speakers, and that isn't their fault the "local kids" were to lame to compete. perhaps you should advocate the government tell business how it is to operate. That's at least consistent with your ideological inconsistency

#9 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-22 01:52 PM | Reply

So US companies choose non-english speakers over locals. Welcome to capitalism.

#10 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-24 09:21 AM | Reply

Which would be just fine if righties didn't simultaneously worship corporations while acting as if the conditions they create are unacceptable. Their mindset is one giant cognitive dissonance.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-24 11:55 AM | Reply

If you really wanted to put an end to illegal immigration, you'd bust the companies that hire them. No jobs=no reason to come. But that would be bad for business and campaign contributions.

#12 | Posted by morris at 2017-11-24 12:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort