Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

War Of The Worlds

I live in Santa Monica, California and as you can imagine, the last few days have been traumatic. We are lucky to live a couple of miles from the fire zone and are not currently in any danger. But I know many people who were evacuated and some are still waiting to go back to their homes because the danger is still acute. Everyone I know knows someone whose house has burned; one of my closest friends lost everything and literally escaped with just the clothes on his back. We’re all still on alert here waiting to see if the winds pick up as predicted next week, praying that the worst is behind us.

All natural disasters are frightening. I’ve been through a few earthquakes and one big hurricane. But I have to say that watching a firestorm threaten America’s second largest city right on my own doorstep is a particularly terrifying experience. These are the scenes we saw on every local television station in Los Angeles for the first 24 hours:

A friend of mine texted me asking what it was like to be in the middle of all this asking, “is it like 9/11?” I wrote that nothing can really compare to the shock of watching those two skyscrapers come down in the middle of America’s premiere city but I don’t think it’s entirely dissimilar. The difference is that the perpetrator of this particular horror isn’t a foreign terrorist — it’s us.

The existential threat of climate change has become very, very real — a slow-rolling “War of the Worlds,” relentless and seemingly unstoppable. We know what to do, but we just won’t do it and the consequences have arrived. Yes, these fires will eventually be tamed and people will pick up their lives and carry on just as New Yorkers did after the attacks. But this isn’t going to end with that. These extreme weather events are happening with increasing intensity and frequency not just here but all over the planet and anyone who pretends that this is normal is either fooling themselves or is lying to everyone else.

And when you’re sitting in front of your TV waiting to find out if you have to run for your life, once again realizing that we have just empowered an ignorant, mendacious cretin who’s planning to not just dismantle every attempt to mitigate the damage but actually exacerbate the threat, you just dissolve into despair — and anger. How can we just let this happen?

Californians are used to being bashed by Republican politicians and some of their supporters. It’s always popular to mock us and use us as the poster children for everything that’s wrong with America. I don’t think most of us really care much about that which is probably one reason they’re so frustrated with us. We know that despite our problems, as any place that has nearly 40 million people in it would have, it’s really pretty great and those who don’t care for us are welcome to their opinion.

But I confess that I am shocked at the monumental lack of grace, empathy and compassion coming from the right as this horrific emergency unfolded. I know that it’s human nature to point fingers and there are no doubt many mistakes that we will find as the city recovers. It is also natural in such fast moving emergencies that wrong information will be disseminated even by officials you rely on. (At one point an evacuation notice went out to all of LA County by mistake!) But no disaster operates perfectly and a thorough after-action investigation, reforms, accountability etc are all to be expected. If heads have to roll then they will, I’m sure. But the right wing media, influencers and Republican politicians have been stunningly callous about this ghastly event, even for them.

It’s way beyond the usual social media trolling, although that’s been relentless and cruel. And even the sexist and racist “DEI” catcalling, as my colleague Amanda Marcotte wrote about, isn’t the worst of it. It’s the misinformation and climate denialism that’s the most chilling. The consequences of this intentional crusade to mislead the public on this subject are going to have repercussions far beyond this one firestorm.

President Trump has said that we had no water because Gov. Newsom refuses to “turn on the water”, that the hydrants were all dry, there was no preparation and yes, that the whole fire department is a bunch of “DEI” hires who know nothing about firefighting. All of it is wrong. (Here’s thorough fact check from the Governor’s office.)

Newsom addressed some of the lies and delusions in this podcast:

Everyone who knows anything about California fire hazards and water (or even if you’ve ever seen the movie “Chinatown”) knows that there are issues in this drought prone area. We’ve been fighting over water for decades. But as Newsom says in that clip, Trump is convinced of some delusional nonsense. Just take a look at this “weave” from the last California GOP Convention. (Starts at about 19:03)

Where does this madness come from? As historian Rick Perlstein pointed out in this piece from back in 2016, he likely got it originally from conspiracist Alex Jones. More recently, as you can see from that speech it was former congressman and current CEO of Trump’s Truth Social media platform, Devin Nunes, who apparently filled his head with a simplistic tale about a big “valve” that Newsom (and Gov. Jerry Brown before him) refused to turn on to fill Southern California with all the water it could ever want because they want to save a “little fish.” (This piece at Vox lays out what this is really all about if you’re interested but suffice to say that nothing Trump, Jones or Nunes said applies to Los Angeles or these wildfires.)

There was enough water in the reservoirs but the system was overwhelmed by the sheer, unprecedented scale of the fire so they lost water pressure for a time. The air tankers (which can scoop water out of the nearby reservoir called “the Pacific Ocean”) couldn’t fly because of the hurricane level winds. One fire department chief told Katy Tur of MSNBC they could have had an army of firefighters and they wouldn’t have been able to stop those houses from burning because they were all going up at once from the flying embers in 80 mph winds. It was literally a perfect storm.

Yet, here’s a small example of the grotesque commentary spewing forth from Donald Trump’s social media feed as the crisis was unfolding:

Not one word of sympathy for the victims of the fire or any promise to follow through on federal help for the area. And one lie after another.

He’s already got Republican politicians vowing to demand that California follow Trump’s orders about how to deal with wildfires if we expect to get any help once Biden is gone.Sen. John Barasso of Wyoming had this to say on Sunday Morning:

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Oh., also weighed in:

I presume that if they deign to help out we undeserving Un-Real Americans, we’ll all be out raking the forests and watching helplessly as they demand that we uselessly seed clouds when there is 5% humidity And they’ll turn that big valve on to release the 2% of water that’s not already diverted to the farmers and watch the Sacramento delta turn to salt water and destroy the entire ecosystem and the salmon fisheries. But that’s a small price to pay to prove that climate change doesn’t exist, own the libs and make sure the fossil fuel industry is well protected.

Meanwhile, there will be more and more extreme weather events. Here in America virtually every climate change mitigation program will be reversed. There will be more destruction and death increasing in frequency and intensity. Fingers shouldn’t be pointed at brave firefighters or political leaders in the trenches who are tasked with saving lives and helping people recover from catastrophes caused by an existential threat to the entire planet. They should be pointed at the people who refuse to do anything about the real crisis we’re facing.

Salon

They just can’t say it:

WWVD: What Would Vladimir Do?

What-iffing Trump troops in the streets

D.C. National Guard Military Police, Lafayette Park, Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2020. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Revé Van Croft, 715th PAD)

Donald Trump talks tough about deploying troops in the streets. Why? For the same reason he muses about “acquiring” Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Trump, Alex Shepard believes, “is driven almost entirely by his desire to appear strong—or, more to the point, his fear of looking weak. This is why he picks senseless fights with smaller allies while avoiding brawls with the strongmen he so greatly admires.”

Yes, Greenland may have significant resources, but as we pointed out last week, that’s not really why Trump wants it. That’s about Trump’s obsession with size (The New Republic):

As is almost always the case with Trump, though, the cleanest and perhaps most persuasive explanation is the simplest and dumbest: The territory, like Canada, looks really, really big on the commonly used (and widely distorted) Mercator projection. Adding it would be a huge ego boost for a man who, hours after planes hit the Twin Towers, boasted that he now owned the tallest building in New York City. (He didn’t, but that’s beside the point.)

Deploying shock troops in the streets is Trump’s idea of looking big and tough in front of real strongmen like Vladimir Putin. But America’s military doesn’t want the job (Politico):

According to nearly a dozen retired officers and current military lawyers, as well as scholars who teach at West Point and Annapolis, an intense if quiet debate is underway inside the U.S. military community about what orders it would be obliged to obey if President-elect Donald Trump decides to follow through on his previous warnings that he might deploy troops against what he deems domestic threats, including political enemies, dissenters and immigrants.

On Nov. 18, two weeks after the election, Trump confirmed he plans to declare a national emergency and use the military for the mass deportations of illegal immigrants.

One fear is that domestic deployment of active-duty troops could lead to bloodshed given that the regular military is mainly trained to shoot at and kill foreign enemies. The only way to prevent that is establishing clear “rules of engagement” for domestic deployments that outline how much force troops can use — especially considering constitutional restraints protecting U.S. citizens and residents — against what kinds of people in what kinds of situations. And establishing those new rules would require a lot more training, in the view of many in the military community.

But in Trump’s view, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” No further training required.

“Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” Trump asked former defense secretary, Mark Esper, according to Esper’s memoir.

Michael Hirsch writes that given Trump’s demonstrated procilivities and his intent to staff the Trump 2.0 administration with yes-men, Pentagon professionals worry that Trump might demand that soldiers be deployed to advance his political interests. Several retired military officers are discussing it with friends on active-duty.

Anthony Pfaff, a retired colonel who teaches military ethics at the U.S. Army War College, says that domestic crowd control “is not something for which we have any doctrine or other standard operating procedures. Without those, thresholds for force could be determined by individual commanders, leading to even more confusion.” Read: dead civilians.

Some lawyers and experts in military law say a great deal of confusion persists — even among serving officers — over how the military should behave, especially if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and calls up troops to crush domestic protests or round up millions of undocumented immigrants. In most cases, there is little that officers and enlisted personnel can do but obey such presidential orders, even if they oppose them ethically, or face dismissal or court-martial.

Trump has already pardoned soldiers convicted of war crimes. What might he do to soldiers who disobey when he issues a criminal order? How many enlisted personnel might not know the difference in the heat of the moment, especially when Trump gets to decide what’s legal under the Insurrection Act? And federal judges he appointed back him up?

“The basic reality is that the Insurrection Act gives the president dangerously broad discretion to use the military as a domestic police force,” says Joseph Nunn, an expert at the Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s an extraordinarily broad law that has no meaningful criteria in it for determining when it’s appropriate for the president to deploy the military domestically.” Nothing in the text of the Insurrection Act says the president must cite insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence to justify deployment; the language is so vague that Trump could potentially claim only that he perceives a “conspiracy.”

Lawyer up

While some within the miltary community are urging troops to “lawyer up,” Politico reports, that’s no shield. “The fact is, if an order is legal then members of the armed forces have to obey it even if they find it morally reprehensible,” advises Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap (Ret.), presently of Duke Law School, of orders known as “lawful but awful.”

Again, all this is academic for an an elisted man, in the heat of the moment, standing in the street with an M4 and facing protesters or rioters.

This entire, hand-wringing debate would be academic had voters chosen wisely on Nov. 5 and not reelected an amoral horrorshow found guilty of 34 felonies and accused of more.

The Fires Aren’t Out

The dead and missing aren’t all counted

Montage of family photos via CNN.

CNN’s landing page this morning blares: LA fires at critical stage as winds to return and death toll rises.

The Washington Post: Death toll rises to 24 as region braces for return of dangerous winds

The New York Times is more specific about the death toll:

The Eaton fire has killed 16 people, making it one of the deadliest in California’s history, and at least eight people have died in the Palisades blaze. Another 16 people have been reported missing in the areas of the two fires, and officials have warned the number of fatalities is likely to rise.

CNN has already begun profiling the lives lost:

An amputee and his son with cerebral palsy were among the 24 deaths in the fires raging around Los Angeles. The father was found at his son’s bedside.

One victim told a relative that he did not want to evacuate. He died trying to fight the blaze that consumed his home of more than 50 years.

Another victim, an 85-year-old woman, refused to leave her home as the fast-moving Palisades Fire approached, preferring instead to stay behind with her beloved pets. A former child star from Australia also was among those who died, as well as a Malibu resident and surfer who was called a “magnet for people.”

The piece goes on to provide details on half a dozen who died in the fire. It concludes ominously, “This is a developing story and will be updated.

Hurricane Helene survivors know the drill too well. Over 100 died here in Western North Carolina last fall, over 40 in Buncombe County. Asheville Watchdog, “a free, local, not-for-profit” project of national journalists who retired here, published a long “Lives we lost” series.

Los Angeles news outlets are already preparing theirs and adding to them.

Two points.

A private drone flown in the vicinity of the Palisades Fire collided with one of two Canadian CL-415 Super Scooper firefighting planes, damaging its port wing and taking it out of action for repairs. CBS News reports:

California state officials said there have been at least 40 incidents where unauthorized drones have forced firefighters to pause air operations since the wildfires broke out last week. Crews battling the blazes have used air tankers to dump thousands of gallons of flame retardant, and super scoopers, as well as helicopters, to drop water over the blazes.

“When people fly drones near wildfires, fire response agencies often ground their aircraft to avoid the potential for a midair collision,” the FAA writes on its website. “Delaying airborne response poses a threat to firefighters on the ground, residents, and property in nearby communities, and it can allow wildfires to grow larger.”

Photo via FBI.

Don’t be an idiot. You’ll also go to jail for it.

Secondly, Angelenos have to be worries (as we are here) that under a Trump administration disaster relief funding will quickly dry up. The costs will be in the hundreds of billions. Trump and MAGA Republicans in Congress enjoy seeing perceived opponents suffer (Mother Jones):

In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Newsom told NBC News correspondent Jacob Soboroff that he is worried about Trump revoking the federal disaster aid that President Biden has promised California for the next 6 months—a threat that Trump, in fact, has made and carried out multiple times in the past.

“He’s done it in Utah. He’s done it in Michigandid it in Puerto Rico. He did it to California back before I was even governor in 2018, until he found out folks in Orange County voted for him and then he decided to give the money,” Newsom said. “So he’s been at this for years and years and years. It transcends the states, including, by the way, Georgia he threatened similarly. So that’s his style.”

On multiple fronts, we feel you already, L.A.

Who You Gonna Call?

Not these guys

So the GOP California House delegation hurried to Mar-a-Lago this weekend for an audience with Dear Leader while fellow Californians were trying to get through an epic firestorm. But why not? Their constituents won’t care. It’s just a bunch of Los Angelenos. Let ’em burn.

The rest of the world is not as callous:

Here are some locals with more compassion than GOP leaders:

Civil War Inside The Confederacy

Oh my, my. Steve Bannon has declared war on Elon Musk:

“I will have Elon Musk run out of here by Inauguration Day,” Bannon told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera this week. “He will not have a blue pass to the White House, he will not have full access to the White House, he will be like any other person.”

“He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it my personal thing to take this guy down,” Bannon added. “Before, because he put money in, I was prepared to tolerate it; I’m not prepared to tolerate it anymore.”

Bannon’s still beating the H-1B visas conflict, obviously banking on being able to continue his grift on the hardcore racist MAGA base. And he’s cleverly doing it by turning the racism on to the tech-bro Mafia that’s infiltrated the upper reaches of MAGA.

Does he have his finger on the pulse? He said, “This thing of the H-1B visas, it’s about the entire immigration system is gamed by the tech overlords, they use it to their advantage, the people are furious. No blacks or Hispanics have any of these jobs or any access to these jobs. Peter Thiel, David Sachs, Elon Musk, are all white South Africans. He should go back to South Africa. Why do we have South Africans, the most racist people on earth, white South Africans, we have them making any comments at all on what goes on in the United States?”

He’s playing the populist card hard here which makes sense for him but I can’t see how it makes sense for MAGA which is not only racist but worships a billionaire as their Dear Leader. But Bannon thinks he’s on to something, at least for the section of MAGA that takes this stuff somewhat seriously:

“He went out of his way to mock our movement as racist and retards, and he lost,” Bannon said. “We blew him out of the water. He won’t fight. He’s got the maturity of a little boy.” Musk has had “tremendous loss of credibility here in the United States, and quite frankly, the people around Trump are tired of it,” he said. Bannon went on to accuse Musk of being self-serving, insisting that his “sole objective is to become a trillionaire.”

He says that Musk’s just protecting his companies and trying to make more money but his financial support for the extreme right is good and he should do more of it. However:

“What’s not positive,” he added, “is when all of a sudden he tries to put his half-baked ideas which are really about the implementation of techno-feudalism on a global scale. I don’t support that and we’ll fight it.”

If you read the DOGE post below and then this one it’s pretty obvious that all the leaders of the right are in the midst of a massive collective wet dream. It’s probably going to end up the way they all do…

The DOGE Conspiracies

The DOGE is operating in complete secrecy, speaking only on Signal and guarding against leaks. The NY Times did get some information about it, however. It’s not good.

But parts of the operation are becoming clear: Many of the executives involved are expecting to do six-month voluntary stints inside the federal government before returning to their high-paying jobs. Mr. Musk has said they will not be paid — a nonstarter for some originally interested tech executives — and have been asked by him to work 80-hour weeks. Some, including possibly Mr. Musk, will be so-called special government employees, a specific category of temporary workers who can only work for the federal government for 130 days or less in a 365-day period.

The representatives will largely be stationed inside federal agencies. After some consideration by top officials, DOGE itself is now unlikely to incorporate as an organized outside entity or nonprofit. Instead, it is likely to exist as more of a brand for an interlinked group of aspirational leaders who are on joint group chats and share a loyalty to Mr. Musk or Mr. Ramaswamy.

“The cynics among us will say, ‘Oh, it’s naïve billionaires stepping into the fray.’ But the other side will say this is a service to the nation that we saw more typically around the founding of the nation,” said Trevor Traina, an entrepreneur who worked in the first Trump administration with associates who have considered joining DOGE.

Delusions of grandeur much???? Jesus, these people …

The DOGE team, including those paid engineers, is largely working out of a glass building in SpaceX’s downtown office located a few blocks from the White House. Some people close to Mr. Ramaswamy and Mr. Musk hope that these DOGE engineers can use artificial intelligence to find cost-cutting opportunities.

The broader effort is being run by two people with starkly different backgrounds: One is Brad Smith, a health care entrepreneur and former top health official in Mr. Trump’s first White House who is close with Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law. Mr. Smith has effectively been running DOGE during the transition period, with a particular focus on recruiting, especially for the workers who will be embedded at the agencies.

Mr. Smith has been working closely with Steve Davis, a collaborator of Mr. Musk’s for two decades who is widely seen as working as Mr. Musk’s proxy on all things. Mr. Davis has joined Mr. Musk as he calls experts with questions about the federal budget, for instance.

Other people involved include Matt Luby, Mr. Ramaswamy’s chief of staff and childhood friend; Joanna Wischer, a Trump campaign official; and Rachel Riley, a McKinsey partner who works closely with Mr. Smith.

Mr. Musk’s personal counsel — Chris Gober — and Mr. Ramaswamy’s personal lawyer — Steve Roberts — have been exploring various legal issues regarding the structure of DOGE. James Burnham, a former Justice Department official, is also helping DOGE with legal matters. Bill McGinley, Mr. Trump’s initial pick for White House counsel who was instead named as legal counsel for DOGE, has played a more minimal role.

What a cozy little group! I’m sure they all must be the best and the brightest.

I think most of us have known successful people who believe that because they’re good at one thing it makes them Leonardo DaVinci. I certainly came across this in the movie business where every lawyer sees himself as a director. But this is something else.

Peter Thiel is very involved in this project. He recently wrote a very, very weird, paranoid piece for the Financial Times called “A Time for Truth and Reconciliation” (a rather crude evocation of his home country of South Africa’ post-apartheid commission, which takes some real chutzpah.) He babbles about all the Red-pill conspiracies around the Deep State, Jeffrey Epstein, the JFK assassination, and COVID-19 in the kind of prose reserved for the most pretentious of Q-Anon fanatics.

“Trump’s return to the White House augurs the apokálypsis of the ancien regime’s secrets. The new administration’s revelations need not justify vengeance—reconstruction can go hand in hand with reconciliation. But for reconciliation to take place, there must first be truth.”

FFS. Edward Luce of the Financial Times was not amused:

I think this captures it perfectly:

Just read it. And pray that these ridiculous incel freaks get bored with this little project and move on to building their shopping malls on Mars or whatever other adolescent fantasy they’ve been nursing since middle school. I’m not sure any of them have the faintest idea of how bureaucracies work or understand the power of them. But I guess we’re going to see. Trump obviously doesn’t give a damn about any of it. He got his. He won and he’s going to make more money than he ever has.

I’ve never been one to hate on the pointy headed nerd types but I’m becoming converted. These people are living in another dimension.

Update: Tom had a great post the other day about Thiel’s op-ed. You just can’t make this stuff up.

Only The Worst People On Earth

Tate’s a right wing star:

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has voiced his support for Andrew Tate’s bid to become the UK Prime Minister, despite Tate’s controversial views and criminal allegations. Musk’s involvement in British politics, which includes criticism of Labour leader Keir Starmer and endorsement of far-right figures, has sparked significant debate. Conservative spokespersons have described Musk’s actions as irresponsible and dangerous.

A video clip surfacing on social media shows Andrew Tate denouncing the “generational failure” of UK politics. Earlier this week, he referred to himself as the “unofficial Prime Minister of The United Kingdom” in a post and voiced support for Greenland being annexed into the US.

To this, Musk replied, “He’s not wrong”.

Who is Andrew Tate?


Andrew Tate, a self-described “misogynist,” is infamous for his extreme views and criminal allegations, including charges of rape and human trafficking. Alongside his brother, he faces accusations in Romania of exploiting women and is set to be extradited to the UK to address further allegations. Tate has consistently denied all charges.

Tate has openly criticised the UK government, claiming the nation is deteriorating under its current leadership.

He has previously supported controversial figures like Tommy Robinson, a convicted criminal known for racist behaviour. Robinson, who was imprisoned for libelling a Syrian refugee, has also received public support from Musk, who has repeatedly called for his release.

Some examples of Tate’s commentary:

Trump’s senior counsellor Alina Habba is a big fan but a few MAGA women aren’t so sure he’s good for the MAGA movement.

This is what MAGA has always been. Their leader is a man who openly proclaimed that he could grab strange women by the pussy and they let him do it yet they voted for him twice.

MAGA is a violent misogynist cult. But don’t forget, they’re very devout Christians.

Dispatches From The Dark Side

While you lost sleep over friends in L.A.

Photo shot from Sherman Oaks via Kathy Van Ness of Manhattan Beach, CA.

For those of you not following the victim-blaming on Fox News:

“We stoke hatred.” Is it on their business cards?

Rude Pundit remarks:

Not that it’s up to me (it’s up to LA County voters–home rule is cool & all that), but LA County in 2024 had a $49.2 billion budget (https://ceo.lacounty.gov/budget/), and I don’t see anything wrong with spending these amounts on these ⬇️ activities.

ICYMI:

The Supreme Court said Friday it will review the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans to provide no-cost preventive care, including cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception, to millions of Americans.

The case puts the law, commonly known as Obamacare, in the crosshairs once again and follows several challenges in recent years by conservatives hoping to overturn it, as well as a landmark 2012 ruling by the justices upholding its legality.

In Becerra v. Braidwood Management Inc., a Christian-owned business and six individuals challenged the preventive-care provision because it requires health-care plans to cover pre-exposure medications intended to prevent the spread of HIV among certain at-risk populations. The plaintiffs argue that the medications “encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior,” which conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Rude Pundit on that subject:

Live and let live is not part of their faith model.

Meanwhile, out on the Interwebs, there is a conspiracy theory going around about House Resolution 7 introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Az.) and Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.). Summarized in brief:

House Resolution 7Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, life-affirming medical care for women of all ages, was referred to the Committee on Energy on Commerce. HR 7 states that women should feel empowered and equipped with the knowledge to listen to their body and advocate for their health.

The resolution emphasizes women having access to health care for the sake of their physical, mental, and spiritual wellness. It also states that women’s health care should address the needs of men, families, and communities. While focusing on women’s health care, the resolution, does not state, why or how men or families are related to the care of women’s health.

Additionally the resolution adds that the use of Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers, a group of centers that provide health care to women is a goal of the representatives sponsoring the bill in the 119th Congress.

No, what the resolution states is that the Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers model is one “worth implementing nationwide,” and that, again, women’s health care “should also address the needs of men, families, and communities,” including her “spiritual wellness.”

One fact check from MSN states that, contra online rumors, the resolution will not require women “to get permission from their husband, father or priest to obtain birth control, have their tubes tied, access IVF, get treated for a miscarriage or end a pregnancy for any reason.”

First, it’s a resolution, not a law. Second, it doesn’t state any of that expressly.

OTOH, you can read between the lines where Biggs and Higgins want to take women in this country and why these men introduced this resolution. You don’t need a weatherman….

Mindful Vs. Mindless

Some days it seems like we’re doomed

“I love these mountains,” said the workman driving the pickup truck as he admired the ridgetops. Then he tossed his empty drink cup out the window. The wife retells that anecdote now and then. She was in the passenger seat.

For a time in the 1990s, New Agers called this area the Sedona of the East. Others call it the Paris of the South. People in certain circles toss around words like mindful and intentional, whatever they mean. That’s aging hippie lingo to a lot of people just trying to pay their bills each week as expenses rise and paychecks don’t. Some people need to be whacked upside of the head for concerns like climate change to sink in, even when notice arrives at the front door.

Helene whacked a lot of people upside of the head here on September 27. And still the broader patterns may remain invisible to people like the guy in the truck.

Los Angeles got its own whacking last week. The question is will residents spared and who lost homes see the bigger picture, or like here in WNC will they be too busy rebuilding the lives they had to rebuild them differently.

“[E]ven in this place where there is little dispute that the danger is only getting worse due to climate change, we don’t leave,” explains David Siders at Politico. Even in “fire-gutted, heavily Democratic Altadena … climate change was nowhere near top of mind,” he found:

“When the wind gets like that, I’m sure that’s been happening since the beginning of time,” said David Allen, a writer whose own home was spared, but who was surveying a less fortunate neighbor’s. In this neighborhood full of doctors and professors and scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Allen said he suspected people here just might become more animated about climate change. He nodded to the darkened sky obscuring the daytime sun — a “toxic wasteland,” he said.

But everywhere else? The country had just elected Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, joked about rising seas creating “more oceanfront property” and promises to “drill, baby, drill.”

“We’re in a stage where half the country’s thinking magically about things,” Allen said. “They’ve allowed themselves that luxury to be anti-everything — the end of expertise.”

Another blast of wind. Another fire. Okay, this one was nastier than most. Apocalyptic, like the Helene winds and flooding that killed over 100 in Western North Carolina and altered the landscape. But were the Los Angeles fires apocalyptic enough to change minds?

“Blame?” said one resident Siders spoke with about the fire. “No,” he said, “We don’t know what started it.”

There’s an idea I’ve heard from many Democrats, especially in California, that more experience with natural disasters might spur more urgency around climate change. And in fact, polling suggests people affected by extreme weather do draw a link. California’s former governor, Jerry Brown, told me when we met last month in Sacramento that Trump might represent something of an opening for Democrats on the issue: “If the assault on the environment is as extreme as expected, then I believe the fervor for protecting the environment will increase far beyond what it is today.” Attitudes about climate might shift, he said, when “we get a big set of fires or floods, which we’re going to get.”

He was right, it turned out, about the set of fires. And the climate science was right there with it. The same day I visited Altadena, a group of researchers released a study describing how climate change had accelerated “hydroclimate whiplash” between wet and dry conditions, increasing the risk of fire. Its lead author, Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California’s agriculture and natural resources division and UCLA, told me that one of the challenges when it comes to public opinion about climate change is that while people “correctly understand that climate change exists,” many “don’t feel it is viscerally or tangibly affecting them.”

Major catastrophes are relatively rare, and when they do happen, not everyone draws a connection to climate. He called it an “information crisis.”

And it is a political one, too. Even if people do accept the reality of climate change, and even if they are concerned about it, the issue tends to rank low on people’s list of priorities when it comes to electing politicians who can shape public policy.

There are dozens of cartoons picturing a pair of dinosaurs and the Chicxulub asteroid. “Maybe it isn’t going to be so bad,” says one from The New Yorker.

I imagine dinosaurs in MAGA hats sneering, “Cry more, asteroid.”

 
View on Threads