It's About Time!

[Axel Slingerland]

I just got the June Newsletter from California Assemblywoman Bains' office. The State Legislature has approved her proposal to staff CAL FIRE year-round as part of the 2025-26 State Budget and Governor Gavin Newsom signed it into law, bringing CAL FIRE's staffing levels up to 9,000 year-round, full time firefighters.

I feel safer already, just knowing that. There was a time when California had a Fire Season, but that was ages ago. Now there is fire danger every day of the year.

 

[Jacob Petersheim]

I wouldn't trust the guy to shine my shoes, but I hope this is an open and honest effort he will see through.

Isn't the current spate of recurring fires part of the cyclic climate pattern there though? It seems as if development in California has ignored its geography and meteorology and the need for mass burns as a natural part of the ecosystem. Much of the state seems to teeter on the edge of inept and poorly coordinated efforts at terraforming a hostile landscape.

It's nothing new though. The 1930s illustrated in Chinatown (1974) and other films merely shines a light on problems living on those lands that go back to the first Spanish settlements.

Perhaps ideally people would try having a different relationship to the land than trying to turn it into a mismash of Iowa and New York City.

 

[Axel Slingerland]

It's mostly been a Pacific, Gas and Electric lack of maintenance problem that existed decades before Newsom became Governor. The state government certainly played a major part in that, but Newsom actually had very little to do with it. In fact, since PG&E started building power towers all over the state, which actually started shortly after the merger of the California Gas and Electric Corporation merged with the San Francisco Gas and Electric Company that created the company in 1905, but got into full swing after WWII, there have been 14 Republicans, 6 Democrats and 1 Progressive Governors. And none of them were at fault. Take for example, the 1996 trial that found PG&E liable for the contamination of drinking water with hexavalent chromium near Hinkley, California. Republican Pete Wilson, who was governor at the time of the trial, was blamed for taking part in that, but he also had very little to do with it.

But while Trump hasn't been very popular as POTUS with Democrats and Independents, we have had to deal with it. So when Newsom is POTUS, (if he isn't gearing for a run for POTUS, my political predictions are shot) it will be your turn to have to deal with it. That's the way it always has been. But to be honest, Trump doesn't need to worry about Democrats. If he gets taken down, it will be by pissed off Republicans who turn on him.

 

[Marie Mallory]

I'm taking a break from politics; they don't listen to me.

 

[Axel Slingerland]

I don't mind talking about politics, but talking skit and talking politics are two different things. If someone says something I know to be nonsense, or is making petty personal attacks against anyone, most of which typically fall into the category of nonsense, I can't resist the temptation to reply. After I stop laughing, of course. I try my best not to reply in kind, even though I could play that way too.

 

[Jacob Petersheim]

But while Trump hasn't been very popular as POTUS with Democrats and Independents, we have had to deal with it. So when Newsom is POTUS, (if he isn't gearing for a run for POTUS, my political predictions are shot) it will be your turn to have to deal with it. That's the way it always has been. But to be honest, Trump doesn't need to worry about Democrats. If he gets taken down, it will be by pissed off Republicans who turn on him.

Actually Trump has been quite popular with Independents, and even many Democrats. That varies by region, but it is how he won his second term.

Sure, Trump doesn't sit well with some Republican factions. For example the establishment "Romneycrats" who endorsed Biden in 2020, or the wacky Rand Paul Libertarians. One is wedded to the "Uniparty" past, the other wants a future of total chaos.


As far as the recent fires go though, I'm not sure how you can say the problem was not created and then magnified by State and local policy.

Much of the building there should not have been allowed. Surely given the climatological realities the building codes must have been dramatically relaxed to permit any of it to occur.

Then you have water management. Then you have the handling of the entire thing once fires broke out. And on, and on, and on.

Much of California is not fit for habitation, much less agriculture. At least not as it has been done there since the Gold Rush era. Who builds giant homes within the brush, where the winds are notorious during dry seasons? And at such high density?

There must be better approaches to land use, though probably not that would sustain high populations or satisfy the idle rich.

 

[Axel Slingerland]

Much of California is not fit for habitation, much less agriculture.

And yet, California is the most populated state and is #1 in food production in the country. So specifically where are you suggesting is not fit for habitation in California? Some of what I used to consider to be the most least likely places to live in have large populations. I live in one, and I don't believe we're still here. But here we is!