I don’t agree with you. Yes we live in an area where wildfires are likely to occur. So we should prepare for them. Our government leaders are fighting to ban plastic straws while not paying attention to vital issues. The California progressives have screwed up homelessness, crime, water, electricity, innovation in labor. Almost anything they have touch has turned to shit. The growth of fire fuel due to several wet years resulted in lots of fuel for a fire. Very high winds added a very dangerous effect. But fire hydrants gone, no action to clear brush. The list goes on. DEI seems to have a much higher priority than the work that good governance requires.
We do live in an area with high fire risk. So manage it.
Where I agree with you is that we live in area that has a very real fire hazard. We aren’t moving so we have to manage that risk. We are seeing a very difficult situation with multiple fires and near criminal prioritization of DEI, progressive agenda at the expense of public safety
I've been dying on this hill on twitter: Where is the evidence that DEI had any impact whatsoever on the fire response? Also where is the evidence that the response has been lacking?
This story isn't aging well Leighton. You and I sparred a minute or 2 over on X about weather any of the current shit show going on in LA had anything at all to do with hires surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion which we didn't agree, but now some big names like Marc Andreesson and Justine Bateman wading into the convo with you and Bari Weiss over at The Free Press. I'm a subscriber to both you and TFP, and will continue to be, but this piece came off as tone deaf, running cover for those we elect to govern basic services and safety and a sorta 'well shit happens' feeling to it. I know guys like you, Katie Halper, Aaron Maté, Bari & Nellie all have a left leaning slants to your journalism and I'm cool with that, but in this case you may want to get in front of this and do a little damage control. Just sayin.
Are you seriously suggesting I should change my analysis because a couple of famous people tweeted mean tweets about it? That's what you would respect from a journalist?
I just fundamentally disagree that "tone deaf" is a legitimate criticism of an article. I'm not a politician; it's not my job to "read the room." If I followed that advice I never would have taken any of the critical stances I have against the excesses of social justice ideology at the height of 2020, or the overreach on lockdowns and vaccine mandates — because that was also "tone deaf" and made a lot of people including rich and famous ones mad.
Nope......not saying you should 'change your analysis' at all. The reason I'm a paying sub to you, TFP, Shellenberger @ Public, Taibbi @ Racket, is b/c you guys take positions that in many cases, go against the grain and narratives of traditional media. As far as reading the room goes, I don't think there is anything wrong with a little room reading depending on the situation, but that's just me.
BTW.....the social justice/BLM grift of 2020 were fairly obvious to a lot of us and the lockdowns/vaccine mandates were gross violations of our civil liberties and downright illegal. Millions of people just like me gave the authorities a gigantic fuck you so you're hardly alone on either of those.
Perhaps 'tone deaf' was the incorrect description and my other description of 'well, shit happens' would be more in line, but it's all good......just throwing in my 2 cents (which is way overvalued).
Just like at TFP, and many other subs, I'll continue to support you guys b/c you are all very important in what's going on with reporting in this world and I enjoy the challenges to my own biases and how you all force me to stretch and broaden my thinking. Cheers.
Yeah I don't mean to suggest I was some kind of pioneer on the Covid and BLM dissent. Just that the whole "too soon" approach to journalism was precisely what created groupthink around those issues in the media at that time.
As for the "shit happens" connotation of my piece, yeah, you're right that that's in there. But I think it's borne out by 100 years of history and the millions of years of grassland ecology.
I have to disagree with the premise that no one is responsible. California is one of the, too many, states where voters appear happy to get nothing but higher taxes with no corresponding return, and get the politicians perpetuating that result elected and re-elected. This is, in a word, insanity. We happen to live in a country and in a time where we are blessed with technology and the wherewithal to implement it, that can and does deliver enormous positive results. Except in states like California where elected and appointed officials its utilization. Power spikes and outages, destruction of dams and reservoirs instead of building more, importing energy at enormous cost, allowing fresh water to be dumped into the Pacific, for a very few examples. This is all man, or more appropriately, politician made. Newsome being the current, and most, responsible. Why does a New Yorker, whom many people hate, come to California in 2018 and point out the obvious need for forest management? And, it is obvious! And now Newsome blames him for mismanagement, or indeed causing, the fires? Why, when the Speaker of the Assembly, who stepped up the mic at a press conference two days ago, announce the convening of a Special Legislative Session for the purpose of... Trump Proofing California! And instead of answering press questions about the LA fires, deflects and tries to bring it back to Trump! WHAT??? Why do the politicians and state bureaucrats hate forest management? We've known how to do it for 100 years or more! IMHO, it appears they believe it results in them gaining more power. And, in California, in some perverse way, that keeps getting them elected. And it's why, people are leaving one of the greatest places to live in the United States.
I think we have a pretty good idea of why the hydrants went dry. In fact the same thing happened in the Oakland Hills fire of 1991. Essentially the reservoirs built at the higher elevations didn't have near sufficient capacity for the quantity of water needed for a massive fire event. Solution is obviously to build more storage but that would be expensive and unpopular and there is a serious question about what the upper limit of capacity might be or if there is one. Thank you for your excellent article which spells out some hard truths people would rather avoid. Open question, at least in my mind, as to whether anything effective will come out of this.
Thank you for injecting some data and logic into the discussion. I was born in the San Fernando Valley, and grew up there. Spot fires cropped up every year. Sometimes it was due to carelessness, cigarettes, campfires, etc. When conditions were at their worst a spark from a car engine or air conditioning unit could be enough. Amazingly, however, the LAFD never found that poor people stealing fire hydrants, dark people getting jobs, or mayors with magical foreknowledge of future fires were the cause. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising when a journalist whose "scientific" background is in hypnosis writes such tripe.
I don’t agree with you. Yes we live in an area where wildfires are likely to occur. So we should prepare for them. Our government leaders are fighting to ban plastic straws while not paying attention to vital issues. The California progressives have screwed up homelessness, crime, water, electricity, innovation in labor. Almost anything they have touch has turned to shit. The growth of fire fuel due to several wet years resulted in lots of fuel for a fire. Very high winds added a very dangerous effect. But fire hydrants gone, no action to clear brush. The list goes on. DEI seems to have a much higher priority than the work that good governance requires.
We do live in an area with high fire risk. So manage it.
But my argument wasn’t that politicians have no responsibility or that they handled all of this just fine.
Where I agree with you is that we live in area that has a very real fire hazard. We aren’t moving so we have to manage that risk. We are seeing a very difficult situation with multiple fires and near criminal prioritization of DEI, progressive agenda at the expense of public safety
I've been dying on this hill on twitter: Where is the evidence that DEI had any impact whatsoever on the fire response? Also where is the evidence that the response has been lacking?
(Those dumb PR videos from LAFD aren't evidence.)
I don’t have evidence. We have seen when DEI becomes a top priority. Agencies take their eye off the task. May not be the case here.
This story isn't aging well Leighton. You and I sparred a minute or 2 over on X about weather any of the current shit show going on in LA had anything at all to do with hires surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion which we didn't agree, but now some big names like Marc Andreesson and Justine Bateman wading into the convo with you and Bari Weiss over at The Free Press. I'm a subscriber to both you and TFP, and will continue to be, but this piece came off as tone deaf, running cover for those we elect to govern basic services and safety and a sorta 'well shit happens' feeling to it. I know guys like you, Katie Halper, Aaron Maté, Bari & Nellie all have a left leaning slants to your journalism and I'm cool with that, but in this case you may want to get in front of this and do a little damage control. Just sayin.
Andreesson - https://x.com/pmarca/status/1878605684436353514
Justine Bateman - https://x.com/JustineBateman/status/1878603362830356716
Are you seriously suggesting I should change my analysis because a couple of famous people tweeted mean tweets about it? That's what you would respect from a journalist?
I just fundamentally disagree that "tone deaf" is a legitimate criticism of an article. I'm not a politician; it's not my job to "read the room." If I followed that advice I never would have taken any of the critical stances I have against the excesses of social justice ideology at the height of 2020, or the overreach on lockdowns and vaccine mandates — because that was also "tone deaf" and made a lot of people including rich and famous ones mad.
Nope......not saying you should 'change your analysis' at all. The reason I'm a paying sub to you, TFP, Shellenberger @ Public, Taibbi @ Racket, is b/c you guys take positions that in many cases, go against the grain and narratives of traditional media. As far as reading the room goes, I don't think there is anything wrong with a little room reading depending on the situation, but that's just me.
BTW.....the social justice/BLM grift of 2020 were fairly obvious to a lot of us and the lockdowns/vaccine mandates were gross violations of our civil liberties and downright illegal. Millions of people just like me gave the authorities a gigantic fuck you so you're hardly alone on either of those.
Perhaps 'tone deaf' was the incorrect description and my other description of 'well, shit happens' would be more in line, but it's all good......just throwing in my 2 cents (which is way overvalued).
Just like at TFP, and many other subs, I'll continue to support you guys b/c you are all very important in what's going on with reporting in this world and I enjoy the challenges to my own biases and how you all force me to stretch and broaden my thinking. Cheers.
Yeah I don't mean to suggest I was some kind of pioneer on the Covid and BLM dissent. Just that the whole "too soon" approach to journalism was precisely what created groupthink around those issues in the media at that time.
As for the "shit happens" connotation of my piece, yeah, you're right that that's in there. But I think it's borne out by 100 years of history and the millions of years of grassland ecology.
I have to disagree with the premise that no one is responsible. California is one of the, too many, states where voters appear happy to get nothing but higher taxes with no corresponding return, and get the politicians perpetuating that result elected and re-elected. This is, in a word, insanity. We happen to live in a country and in a time where we are blessed with technology and the wherewithal to implement it, that can and does deliver enormous positive results. Except in states like California where elected and appointed officials its utilization. Power spikes and outages, destruction of dams and reservoirs instead of building more, importing energy at enormous cost, allowing fresh water to be dumped into the Pacific, for a very few examples. This is all man, or more appropriately, politician made. Newsome being the current, and most, responsible. Why does a New Yorker, whom many people hate, come to California in 2018 and point out the obvious need for forest management? And, it is obvious! And now Newsome blames him for mismanagement, or indeed causing, the fires? Why, when the Speaker of the Assembly, who stepped up the mic at a press conference two days ago, announce the convening of a Special Legislative Session for the purpose of... Trump Proofing California! And instead of answering press questions about the LA fires, deflects and tries to bring it back to Trump! WHAT??? Why do the politicians and state bureaucrats hate forest management? We've known how to do it for 100 years or more! IMHO, it appears they believe it results in them gaining more power. And, in California, in some perverse way, that keeps getting them elected. And it's why, people are leaving one of the greatest places to live in the United States.
I think we have a pretty good idea of why the hydrants went dry. In fact the same thing happened in the Oakland Hills fire of 1991. Essentially the reservoirs built at the higher elevations didn't have near sufficient capacity for the quantity of water needed for a massive fire event. Solution is obviously to build more storage but that would be expensive and unpopular and there is a serious question about what the upper limit of capacity might be or if there is one. Thank you for your excellent article which spells out some hard truths people would rather avoid. Open question, at least in my mind, as to whether anything effective will come out of this.
Thank you for injecting some data and logic into the discussion. I was born in the San Fernando Valley, and grew up there. Spot fires cropped up every year. Sometimes it was due to carelessness, cigarettes, campfires, etc. When conditions were at their worst a spark from a car engine or air conditioning unit could be enough. Amazingly, however, the LAFD never found that poor people stealing fire hydrants, dark people getting jobs, or mayors with magical foreknowledge of future fires were the cause. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising when a journalist whose "scientific" background is in hypnosis writes such tripe.
This is also true of much post-1788 human settlement in Australia.