Where Are The Elites Defending Mayor Karen Bass & Governor Gavin Newsom? (1-19-25)

01:00 LA fires represent the failure of liberal governance, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158603
04:00 Red-pilled Billionaires, LA Fire Update, Newsom’s Price Caps, TikTok Ban, Jobless MBAs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ35G6XI8Uw
08:00 LAT: Amid dangerous winds in 2011, LAFD engines stood ready. That didn’t happen this time, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-18/amid-dangerous-winds-in-2011-lafd-engines-stood-ready-in-the-palisades-that-didnt-happen-this-time
23:00 Tiktok is back
44:00 Kip discusses oral loving
47:00 Kip’s repetitive concerns regarding America’s economy
49:00 The more charismatic the public speaker, the more likely they are cold in person
55:00 The degeneracy of modern American culture
1:57:30 Elliott Blatt joins to discuss creating incentives for pro-social behavior and disincentives for bad behavior
2:04:00 Muslim terror diminished under President Trump’s first term
2:07:00 I was in Munich for the 1972 Munich Olympics
2:35:10 Mark Halperin on the New York Times pathetic coverage of Joe Biden’s decline of mental acuity
2:43:00 Great Rabbinic Thinkers: Rabbi Samuel Mohilever (Part 7) || Dr. Marc Shapiro, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re-r1y264TU
2:47:45 Zionist antisemitism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_antisemitism
3:10:00 The Langer dispute, https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/great-controversy-in-israeli-batei-din-the-langer-case-by-benzion-rotblat-21

Posted in California | Comments Off on Where Are The Elites Defending Mayor Karen Bass & Governor Gavin Newsom? (1-19-25)

Zionist antisemitism

Wikipedia has a great long essay:

Zionist antisemitism or antisemitic Zionism refers to a phenomenon in which antisemites express support for Zionism and the State of Israel. In some cases, this support may be promoted for explicitly antisemitic reasons. Historically, this type of antisemitism has been most notable among Christian Zionists, who may perpetrate religious antisemitism while being outspoken in their support for Jewish sovereignty in Israel due to their interpretation of Christian eschatology. Similarly, people who identify with the political far-right, particularly in Europe and the United States, may support the Zionist movement because they seek to expel Jews from their country and see Zionism as the least complicated method (vis-à-vis ethnic cleansing or genocide) of achieving this goal and satisfying their racial antisemitism.[a]

The Israeli government’s alleged collaboration with antisemitic politicians abroad has been criticized by anti-Zionists as a manifestation of Zionist antisemitism, in that it seeks to highlight Jew-hatred in order to provide further incentive for Jewish immigration to Israel. In this context, anti-Zionists have criticized the Zionist movement’s alleged complicity with or capitulation to antisemitism since it gained traction in the 19th century, and some anti-Zionists have also categorized Zionism as a form of antisemitism.

A complex matrix of racial stereotypes invested European representations of the Jews (conceived of as male), notions not only claiming there were physical traits which marked out Jews from other people, such as that Jews had darker skins, larger noses, were prone to disease or limping and the like,[b] but also that they were rootless and a corruptive presence within Western societies. The massive waves of emigration westwards by Eastern European Jews (known as Ostjuden in German), which were triggered by the recurrence of pogroms throughout Eastern Europe from the 1880s onward, not only intensified prejudices in societies where Jewish communities were well-established and assimilated,[1] but led to the internalization of these putative Jewish characteristics in Jewish self-representations themselves.[2][3][c] To complicate matters, Western European, especially German, Jewish stereotypes of these Ostjuden were often exploited by antisemites as endorsements of their prejudices.[d] These antisemitic stereotypes influenced the representation of Jews in Zionism, and are evidenced also in the writings of Zionist public opinion makers.

According to Jordanian academic Joseph Massad, writing in Middle East Eye, there is a historic link between the Zionist movement and antisemites, in so far as, as modern Zionism’s founder Theodor Herzl recognized, both share at least one basic aim: the negation of the Diaspora.[4] As early as mid-1895, Herzl described his expectation that in supporting the emigration of Jews, “anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies”.[5]

In constructing their image of the “new Jew” or “Hebrew”, the early Zionists contrasted this image against the Yid, the negative caricature of European Jewry. In doing so, they employed language similar to that of antisemites. For example, the Russian-born Jewish scholar Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who developed Revisionist Zionism in the 20th century, wrote:

“Our starting point is to take the typical Yid of today and to imagine his diametrical opposite … because the Yid is ugly, sickly, and lacks decorum, we shall endow the ideal image of the Hebrew with masculine beauty. The Yid is trodden upon and easily frightened and, therefore, the Hebrew ought to be proud and independent. The Yid is despised by all and, therefore, the Hebrew ought to charm all. The Yid has accepted submission and, therefore, the Hebrew ought to learn how to command. The Yid wants to conceal his identity from strangers and, therefore, the Hebrew should look the world straight in the eye and declare: “I am a Hebrew!””

American academic Amy Kaplan, writing in MondoWeiss, has said that “anti-Semitism and pro-Zionism have never been mutually exclusive. Advocates for a Jewish state enlisted stereotypes of Jews – wittingly or not – to further their cause. Theodor Herzl himself appealed to European leaders that Zionism would resolve the ‘Jewish Question’ by sending Jews elsewhere”.[7] Writing for International Socialist Review, Annie Levin argues that the writings of Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, and other European Zionists were “littered with descriptions of European Jews as parasites, social diseases, germs, aliens”…and she also argues that these antisemitic views “flowed quite logically from Zionism’s basic assumptions about Jews. Zionists accepted the 19th century view that anti-Semitism–in fact all racial difference–was a permanent feature of human nature. For this reason it was pointless to struggle against it.” Levin said that Jews have often been “hostile to Zionism” because the movement “called for a retreat from the struggle against anti-Semitism.”[8]

In his book Conspiracy, American historian Daniel Pipes notes that “some antisemites favor a Jewish state as a means of reducing the Jewish population in their midst.” Pipes mentions German journalist Wilhelm Marr, the anti-Jewish agitator who coined the term “antisemitism”, as an early example of a “pro-Zionist antisemite”. Marr supported Jewish migration from Europe to Palestine as being beneficial both for German Jews and for German antisemites. Pipes describes this variety of antisemitism as less common compared to conspiratorial or anti-Zionist antisemitism.[9]

According to the political theorist Michael Walzer, the firt anti-Zionists in the 19th-century were Orthodox Jews who believed that Zionism was a heretical ideology; they argued that the return of Jews to the Land of Israel and the establishment of a state would only occur after the Messiah came and until then Jews must accept living in diaspora and defer to non-Jewish rulers while waiting for redemption. Zionists, who were usually secular, despised the perceived passivity of Orthodox Jews “with such passion” that they were referred to as antisemites by Orthodox anti-Zionists.[10] For example, In 1918, Hungarian anti-Zionist Rabbi Baruch Meir Klein, President of the New York Board of Rabbis, said that the “Goyyim in America let us be Jews. They do not ruin our Talmud Torah. They do not reform our schools…They do not ridicule Jews who go to Mikveh or Kloppen Hoyshaness…It is enough for me to be in Galuth (disapora) with Goyyim. I have no need to be [in Eretz Israel], in Galuth under Jews who are antisemitic Zionists.”[11][undue weight? – discuss]

A similar conclusion was reached at the opposite end of the Jewish political spectrum, by some liberal assimilationist Jews. For example, British Liberal Party politician Edwin Montagu, the sole Jewish member of the Lloyd George ministry and an ardent anti-Zionist, was “passionately opposed to the [Balfour] declaration on the grounds that… it was a capitulation to anti-Semitic bigotry, with its suggestion that Palestine was the natural destination of the Jews”.[12]

The Austrian-Jewish anti-Zionist writer Karl Kraus regarded antisemitism as the “essence” of the Zionist movement and used the label “Jewish antisemites” to describe Jews who identified as Zionists.[13] He attacked German-Jewish self-hatred, gaining notoriety at the turn of the twentieth century for his pamphlets A Crown for Zion and Die demolierte Literatur (Demolished Literature). In the former, he thrust barbs at what he saw as the self-hating aspects of German Jewish society and German Zionism, while in the latter, he lampoons a couple of members of the Viennese literary crowd (a Jewish crowd, though this was not an overt part of this second work). In A Crown for Zion, Kraus suggests that in attempting to assimilate, German Jews had imbibed the stereotypes and beliefs in racial power structures pervasive through German society. He describes assimilationist Zionists, and Herzl in particular, as “Jewish antisemites” in the same vein as the “Aryan antisemites” for their common desire to expel Jews from European culture.[14]

Writing for Socialist Worker in 2017, Sarah Levy asserted that early Zionists “partnered with a rabidly antisemitic British ruling class to secure funding for their colonial project in Palestine”.[15]

In a controversial 2013 op ed for Al-Jazeera, Joseph Massad stated that “It is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.” Massad said that “Jewish opponents of Zionism” understood that gentile Europeans “shared the precepts of anti-Semitism” and that Zionists and antisemites held a shared belief in “the expulsion of Jews from Europe.” Massad said that most pre-War European Jews resisted the “anti-Semitic basis of Zionism”, while European countries typically supported “the anti-Semitic programme of Zionism”.

Racism between Jews is common in Israel.

In 2023, a video circulated on social media showing Likud activist Itzik Zarka shouting “may you burn in hell” at protesters and disrespecting Holocaust victims by further adding “I am proud of the six million that were burned, I wish that another six million would be burned” whilst additionally referring to leftists as traitors. Zarka was later removed from the party under orders by Benjamin Netanyahu.

In the US, left-wing Jews and others have accused mainstream Zionists of using antisemitic tropes against progressive Jews and of allying with Christian and conservative antisemites.

Austin Ahlman of The Intercept said that Zionist organization Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) employed antisemitic tropes during the 2020 election after DMFI released attack ads criticizing the progressive Jewish California politician Sara Jacobs. The ads emphasized Jacobs’ wealthy background, portraying her “fortune and privileged life” as making her out of touch with ordinary Americans. The Intercept said that the “imagery and language employed by many of the ads are reminiscent of common antisemitic tropes”, noting that DMFI had previously endorsed wealthy non-Jewish candidates. Rachel Rosen, a DMFI spokesperson, denied accusations that the ads were antisemitic.[26]

In August 2022, the left-wing Jewish organization IfNotNow tweeted that AIPAC was antisemitic after AIPAC said that “George Soros has a long history of backing anti-Israel groups” and that “J Street & Soros work to undermine” pro-Israel Democrats. IfNotNow tweeted that AIPAC was not a Jewish organization, did not represent Jews, and in allegedly promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories about Soros, AIPAC had become part of the “antisemitic far right.”[27]

The March for Israel, held in Washington, D.C., in November 2023, featured the Christians United for Israel founder and Evangelical pastor John Hagee as a speaker. No Jewish clergy were invited to speak.[28] Hagee has sparked controversy in the past for claiming that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust by being “disobedient” to God, that God sent Hitler, and that Hitler was of Jewish descent.[29] Critics, including progressive Jewish organizations, denounced Hagee’s presence. Rabbi Jill Jacobs of T’ruah tweeted that she and other members of the Progressive Israel Network believe Hagee’s “so-called support of Israel is based in antisemitism.”[30] Writing for MondoWeiss, Rabbi Jessica Rosenberg and Reverend Allyn Maxfield-Steele wrote that Hagee’s presence was “entirely predictable…for those familiar with the long-standing alliance between Zionists and antisemites” and that supporting Israel doesn’t automatically make someone an ally to Jewish people.

Right-wing and Christian pro-Zionist antisemitism

Atalia Omer wrote that young Israeli activists “increasingly recognize that their safety depends on linking the fight against antisemitism to other social justice struggles”, mentioning those such as B’Tselem who, “for years have decried the weaponization of antisemitism.” Omer said that these “critical voices are silenced within the entrenched ideological regime that the IHRA represents as it coalesces with white nationalist and Christian Zionist antisemitism.”[32][undue weight? – discuss]

The Norwegian far-right domestic terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is both an antisemitic neo-Nazi and a strong supporter of the State of Israel. The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek described Breivik’s ideology as an “extreme version” of “Zionist anti-Semitism”, writing that Breivik is “antisemitic, but pro-Israel” because in Breivik’s view the Israeli state is a “first line of defense against Muslim expansion”. Žižek notes that Breivik believes that France and the United Kingdom have a “Jewish problem” due to their large Jewish populations, whereas the rest of Western Europe doesn’t, describing this as Breivik’s belief that “Jews are OK as long as there aren’t too many of them” living in diaspora.[33] Journalist Michelle Goldberg referred to Breivik as an “ardent Zionist” who “has nothing but contempt for the majority of Jewish people”, arguing that his “embrace of Israel…far from being unique, is just the latest sign” that “in European politics, fascism and an aggressive sort of Zionism increasingly go together.” Goldberg cites Islamophobia as a commonality between the State of Israel and “European white nationalists”.[34]

During the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, the historian Stephen F. Eisenman of Northwestern University, writing in CounterPunch, said that it is false to equate all anti-Zionism with antisemitism, both due to the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists including himself as well as “the existence of Zionists who are anti-Semites”. Eisenman listed Alfred Balfour, Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin, Glenn Beck, Richard Spencer, and Donald Trump as examples of “Zionist anti-Semites”.[35]

Desire to expel the Jewish diaspora

Richard S. Levy, a scholar of antisemitism, wrote that “Antisemites certainly found Zionism useful” because Zionism provided “antisemitic Zionists” with a justification as to why Jewish people who were living in the diaspora should be expelled from the societies which they had lived in for centuries. Coerced emigration to the Land of Israel appealed to antisemites because it provided them with a “solution to the Jewish question”.[36][clarification needed]

Arthur Balfour was opposed to a British mandate over Palestine, but supported Zionism as a method to reduce the “alien entity” of Jews in gentile societies, whose presence he considered destabilizing.[f] Writer Bari Weiss considers Balfour as an example of a historical antisemitic Zionist; though Balfour was instrumental in establishing the creation of a Zionist state, he did so because he did not want Jews emigrating from Eastern Europe, many of whom were escaping pogroms, to immigrate to Britain. Weiss cites Balfour’s support of the Aliens Act 1905, which restricted Jewish immigration into Britain, as an example of his antisemitism.[37]

The Polish government of the 1930s supported Jewish immigration to Israel for reasons similar to Balfour.[37] The Polish government during this period was a staunch supporter of the Zionist movement, while also adopting increasingly antisemitic domestic policies. The Polish government actively encouraged emigration to Mandatory Palestine because it decreased the population of Polish Jews. Historian Emanuel Melzer wrote that the Polish government’s attitudes towards Zionism and Jewish emigration “implied that Jews were superfluous, alien, and even a destructive element” and that this attitude “might have had its repercussions on a part of the Polish population’s attitude towards the Jews during the war”, but acknowledges that the Shoah itself was not caused by the intensification of Polish antisemitism between 1936 and 1939.[38] During the 1920s and 1930s, the General Jewish Labour Bund in Poland was vocally critical of this antisemitic Zionism. The Bund produced election campaign materials including the terms “antisemitic Zionists” and “Zionist antisemites”, arguing that the Zionist promotion of emigration and cooperation with the Polish government strengthened antisemitic forces within Polish society.[38]

The French-Jewish journalist Alain Gresh noted that the antisemitic right-wing politician and Nazi collaborator Xavier Vallat said that “Jews would never integrate into France and that they had to go to Israel.”[39] University of Glasgow lecturer Timothy Peace has noted that some members of the French far-right could be considered “antisemitic Zionists”, because they want French Jews to emigrate to Israel.[40][undue weight? – discuss]

The US far right

Right-wing evangelical Christians in the United States are often vocally Zionist while also holding antisemitic attitudes towards Jews. Conservative Christians are amongst the strongest supporters of the State of Israel in the United States. With 7.1 million members, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) is the largest Zionist organization in the United States. Many Christian Zionists believe that the Gathering of Israel is a prerequisite for the final coming of the Christian messiah, after which a portion of Jews will convert and the majority of Jews will be killed and condemned to Hell.[7] Ben Lorber and Aidan Orly, writing in Religion Dispatches, have described Christian Zionism as “one of the largest antisemitic movements in the world today”.[41] Haaretz writer Joshua Shanes condemned CUFI founder John Hagee for promoting an “apocalyptic and deeply antisemitic worldview” and promoting some of the “most dangerous myths of the modern era.” Hagee has promoted financial conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family controlling the federal reserve, said that Hitler was sent by God to murder Jews who refused to emigrate to Israel, and described the Antichrist as a “half-Jew homosexual.”[42] Slavoj Žižek has also described John Hagee, as well as Glenn Beck, as examples of Christian fundamentalist “anti-Semitic Zionists.” Žižek said that Zionism itself has “paradoxically become anti-Semitic” because the movement promotes hatred of anti-Zionist Jews by constructing a figure of Jewish anti-Zionism “along anti-Semitic lines.”[43] Žižek describes the way that Jewish anti-Zionists are maligned as “self-hating Jews” by Zionists as an example of Zionist antisemitism.[44]

Zionist leaders and organizations in the United States have been widely criticized, particularly by the Jewish left, for allegedly downplaying the severity of antisemitism in the United States and for alleged complicity with the Trump administration in order to pursue pro-Israel, Zionist causes. Atalia Omer, a professor of religion at the University of Notre Dame, has written that “Israel’s silence on white nationalism and its implicit or explicit condoning of antisemitic Zionists” has decisively convinced many American Jews that the Israeli government is not keeping Jews safe and is actively endangering Jews living in the diaspora. Omer cites the “moral shock” of Israeli silence on white nationalist antisemitism for discrediting the “Zionist monopoly over the narrative of Jewish survival.”[45] Sarah Levy criticized Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), in Jacobin magazine for being “notably silent” about antisemitism during the Trump era.[15] ZOA was deluged by messages from outraged supporters following ZOA’s support for Steve Bannon and Klein’s statement that he could not be an antisemite because “He’s the opposite of an antisemite. He’s a philo-semite.”[15][46][47] +972 Magazine’s Natasha Roth-Rowland said that a “rise of Zionist antisemitism as a standard behavior among large swaths of the GOP and its ecosystem has become a defining feature of the American far right’s worldview and modus operandi.”[48]

In 2017, Judith Butler denounced antisemitic manifestations of Zionism within the Trump administration. Butler wrote that Bannon is both a “strong Zionist” and that “his antisemitism apparently does not get in the way of his support for the Israeli state, and that his supporters in the Israeli government do not seem to mind.” Butler argued that right-wing antisemitic Zionism is a manifestation of white supremacy, whereby the white Ashkenazi ruling class in Israel makes alliances with right-wing politicians in other countries on the basis of shared anti-Arab racism, anti-Palestinianism, and Islamophobia.[49]

In 2019, the Russian-born Jewish-American journalist Masha Gessen described Donald Trump as a “pro-Zionist anti-Semite”. Gessen noted that Trump’s administration had pursued pro-Israel policies while also spreading Jewish stereotypes, such as the speech Trump delivered at the Israeli American Council National Summit where he declared that “A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well…You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all.” Calling Trump’s comments “plain, easily recognizable anti-Semitism”, Gessen said that Trump views American Jews as “alien beings whom he associates with the state of Israel.”[50][51]

The liberal journalist Peter Beinart said that Zionist antisemitism is likely on the rise in the United States and that it is unclear that Zionists are less likely to harbor antisemitic sentiments compared to anti-Zionists. According to Beinart, “It is easy to find antisemitism among people who, far from opposing Zionism, enthusiastically embrace it.”[52]

During the January 6 United States Capitol attack in 2021, several insurrectionists waved Israeli flags. In this context, organizations including the Adalah Justice Project, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Students for Justice in Palestine made social media posts suggesting a link between Zionist ideology and antisemitic right-wing extremism. The Anti-Defamation League describes these comments as part of an emerging effort among anti-Israel activists to associate “the Israeli flag with white supremacy, racism, settler-colonialism, violence and more”. The ADL disputes this association and notes that the organizations promoting the link did not mention the wide variety of other flags present at the Capitol attack, including those of Canada, Cuba, Georgia, India, South Korea, and the former state of South Vietnam.[53][54][better source needed]

The historian David N. Myers wrote that “Leading white nationalists such as Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor liken their movement to Zionism, seeing it as a model for the kind of monoethnic purity they favor in [the United States].” Myers states that the “combination of pro-Israel and antisemitic sensibilities” is common within American politics due to the combined influences of the “Christian evangelical Right with its end-game theology”, “archly conservative” Catholics, and the political ideology of Donald Trump.[55] Atalia Omer noted “convergences between white supremacist violence and exclusionary politics which often comes in the form of Zionist antisemitism”, citing Richard Spencer’s “white Zionism” as an example.[56]

Ben Lorber, writing for +972 Magazine, argued that American white nationalist support for the “Jewish state’s supremacist values fits comfortably with its deep antisemitism” and that “philosemitic Christian Zionism carries deep undercurrents of anti-Judaism.” Lorber refers to the phenomenon of right-wing Zionism fitting “comfortably alongside simmering currents of antisemitism” as “Antisemitic Zionism”.[57] Commenting on Breitbart’s apparent support for Zionism in 2016, Steven M. Cohen, sociologist at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, said that the correlation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is weak, and that antisemitism is found among both the anti-Zionist left and the Zionist right. Todd Gitlin, sociologist at Columbia University, said that right-wing Zionism and antisemitism “have the same soul…they rhyme” because both are variants of ultra-nationalism.[58]

The belief that Zionism in general is antisemitic

Joseph Massad believes that the Zionist conflation of Jewish people with Zionism has become a global “antisemitic consensus”.[59]

In 2023, according to the Zionist organization StandWithUs, George Washington University psychology professor Lara Sheehi said that Zionism itself was antisemitic;[60] she faced accusations of antisemitism (which were not upheld by her university) for this and other comments.

Posted in Anti-Gentilism, Anti-Semitism, Israel, Jews | Comments Off on Zionist antisemitism

LAT: Amid dangerous winds in 2011, LAFD engines stood ready. That didn’t happen this time

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Thirteen years ago, Los Angeles Fire Department officials were bracing for the kind of dangerous winds that could drive flames across hillsides and canyons and tear through neighborhoods from Malibu to the Pacific Palisades to the San Fernando Valley.

The National Weather Service had issued red flag warnings of doomsday gusts as fierce as 90 mph. Forecasters described the coming windstorm as a once-every-five-to-10-years calamity.

So the LAFD began to marshal its defenses in the days before the arrival of the winds, taking the type of dramatic measures that the department failed to employ last week in advance of the Palisades fire, which followed wind alerts as bad or worse, due to the lack of recent rain, than those of late November 2011.

With the tempest expected to hit on Dec. 1 that year, LAFD commanders ordered up at least 40 extra fire engines for stations closest to the areas where the fire hazards were greatest, including the Palisades…

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on LAT: Amid dangerous winds in 2011, LAFD engines stood ready. That didn’t happen this time

Failing Liberal Leadership

I spend more time reading the mainstream news media than right-wing media because the MSM is consistently better (even though my own views are right-wing). I don’t usually trust right-wing media stories outside of my expertise until I read coverage of them in the MSM and I have the opportunity to compare and contrast the narratives and based on my own knowledge and life experience, I seek out what makes the most sense. When elite narratives contradict my life experience, I try to understand that discrepancy. When the elites are clearly blinkered such as in their denial that different groups have different gifts, it is easy to dismiss their narratives.

Much of the right-wing coverage of LA’s fires is petty partisan point-scoring, but what jumps out to me is the dog that didn’t bark – the complete lack of defense among elites for LA mayor Karen Bass and California governor Gavin Newsome. If the elites do not consider Bass and Newsome worth defending, if the elites aren’t going to bat for California governance, then that signifies a widespread acceptance among non-conservatives that liberal governance has failed in California.

An attorney writes:

The fact that the dog did not bark when you would expect it to do so while a horse was stolen led [Sherlock] Holmes to the conclusion that the evildoer was a not a stranger to the dog, but someone the dog recognized and thus would not cause him to bark. Holmes drew a conclusion from a fact (barking) that did not occur, which can be referred to as a “negative fact,” or for the purpose of this discussion, an expected fact absent from the record.

Karen Bass is a black Marxist. The MSM is usually reluctant to criticize left-wing black and latino political leaders. That the MSM has turned on Bass indicates we are in a different era.

It is not an axiom dictated by Heaven that implementing DEI results in lowered efficiency, it just always seems to work out that way. Commitment to DEI and to other left-wing nonsense goes hand-in-hand with inferior quality of services. On the other hand, I notice that no matter how woke our military has gotten, it is of far higher quality than the militaries of more masculine regimes in China and Russia.

Israel’s elite is left-wing, and Bibi’s right-wing government needed them to carry out his destruction of Hezbollah. Our elite is similarly left-wing, and we need them to be excellent. Populism wins elections, but doesn’t govern effectively unless it can coopt much of the elite. That seems to be what Trump is doing with his connections to Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc. You can’t get much done if 95% of the elite are against you (e.g., Trump’s first term).

The 1992 LA Riots and the 2025 LA Fires would not have occurred in Beverly Hills where you have more government efficiency. Trump supporters held rallies in Beverly Hills in 2020 and 2024 knowing that the BHPD would protect them.

When California legislators spent January Trump-proofing California, that took away time and money that would have better spent improving government efficiency with regard to disasters such as fire.

Jay Kaspian Kang writes for The New Yorker Jan. 16, 2025:

But I do wonder whether Californians, especially those in cities with crime rates that spiked during the pandemic, poorly maintained infrastructure, and large homeless populations might be questioning the priorities of the liberals who govern them. In the Bay Area, voters in both Oakland and San Francisco effectively deposed their mayors in last November’s election—Sheng Thao, of Oakland, was recalled in the midst of a bizarre corruption scandal; London Breed, the incumbent mayor of San Francisco, who once seemed primed for a run up the ladder of the Democratic Party, was defeated by Daniel Lurie, an heir to the Levi’s jeans fortune who has no real political experience. Even in Berkeley, where I live, two long-standing city-council members running for mayor were defeated by an unknown challenger who, as far as I could tell, was a complete unknown to many voters.

It’s difficult to classify or quantify these changes because they will likely not persuade voters in deep-blue districts to leave the Democratic Party. But what seems to be settling in is a general unease about the competence of local and state governance. I live in what Kamala Harris dubbed the East Bay Hills, where the most salient political issue is fire prevention. Most families I know have a go bag packed and can recite their evacuation plan. My house, along with hundreds of others in the neighborhood, was dropped from its fire-insurance policy last year. Most of my neighbors, like many of the people in the Pacific Palisades whose houses burned to the ground, received little to no warning. Nor were there any alternatives to just signing up for the state’s FAIR plan, which, as Elizabeth Kolbert pointed out this week, will come under incredible strain and scrutiny once the claims from Los Angeles start flooding in. It’s reasonable for residents to be skeptical that FAIR will actually pay out, or, at the very least, to expect that the claims process will be so broken, bureaucratic, and ultimately bankrupt that it would almost be easier to skip it.

There is a significant portion of the California electorate who will never vote Republican in a Presidential election, who hold socially progressive cultural beliefs when it comes to racial and gender issues, and who can’t figure out why a place of such wealth and high taxes can’t seem to run anything well on a local level. They carry around their own bag of annoyances about how the state is run. Some grievances, such as homeless encampments in cities, can trigger more strong reactions, while others, such as overzealous equity pushes in public schools, bad roads, high taxes, or property crime, are mostly just accepted as part of the deal if you want to live in the state.

Catastrophic events like the fires in Los Angeles have a way of turning these annoyances into disillusionment. As Trump, Musk, and their army of right-wing online warriors have stepped up the attacks on Bass and Newsom, I’ve been struck by how little resistance they’ve encountered, whether from elected Democrats, media figures, or even liberal posters. There are some obvious reasons why this has happened—Musk owns a social-media company and many of the state’s more politically inclined residents seem to have.

When the fires come for us—and it is a question of when and how much, not if—how many of us will feel the narrative pull to turn all our separate grievances about potholes or schools or petty corruption into one grand story of failing liberal leadership?

Posted in California, Los Angeles | Comments Off on Failing Liberal Leadership

Analyzing The Politics Of The LA Fires

A friend says:

L.A. from the standpoint of the average citizen runs OK as long as there isn’t an emergency. The fault is that the persons elected to high office believe things will continue to run OK and do not plan for emergencies. As a result the overwhelmingly liberal and democratic electorate doesn’t really vote on competence because most people are not worried about a potentially catastrophic brush fire.

The first time that I realized that our leadership lacked much vision in planning for various exigencies was when the Rodney King riots occurred. The LAPD under Darryl Gates and the city under Tom Bradley., was not prepared. It took Pete Wilson to finally send in the national guard before order began to be restored. You would have thought the LAPD would have learned some lessons from the 1965 Watts riot when William Parker was the Chief of police.

One of the problems which has not been discussed is that neither the state nor the County nor the city is so rich that it can expected to pay for emergency services to be prepared for an emergency like the Palisades fire all the time. The issue is not just the failure to maintain and test the hydrants, and to be sure that when a reservoir is taken off line, that sufficient back up water supply is available, and that there be sufficient personnel to fight the fire, and to be sure that all firefighters are properly trained to fight this sort of fire, and to have sufficient fire stations for a low response time, but what is the purpose of the fire department. Should it provide the EMT services that it does now (which make up the majority of calls they respond to)? Should it emphasize DEI and opportunities for women, minorities and gays, if this has any negative impact on the first duty to fight fires? Should it be immune from the budget battles the other city agencies have to deal with?

A very large portion of the firefighting is being done by the LA County Fire Department, by the State, and by other Fire Departments providing “mutual aid.” You would have to have an extraordinarily large fire department if the entire burden was shouldered by the LAFD. (This is as relates to the fires within LA city limits)

Although I am highly critical of DEI in general, I am not sure that having the two top administrative positions in the department filed by Lesbians has made any difference in the LAFD’s effectiveness. I don’t think women should serve as firefighters in the field, but on the other hand they only make up 8 percent or so of the department, so they are almost always the only woman out of a crew of 15 to 20 and there must be things the can do that don’t require the same strength and agility as male firefighters. I have not heard anyone say that the firefighters were harmed or delayed by female firefighters. If the firemen was darting in and out of burning buildings and carrying humans to safety that would be one thing but I don’t think that happened.

The Palisades fire had some unusual features that don’t usually apply. First, the fire happened in Winter. Although this is not unheard of the prime fire season in California is the late summer through fall. Second, the fire happened in a very affluent area. I realize there have been fires in Malibu before, but those usually hit the areas in the hills in less densely populated areas and less affluent population than the Palisades. Third, this followed extremely wet winters the last two years so there was more brush growth that died off this past summer, fall and beginning of winter. Fourth, the water pressure failed and the reservoirs ran out of water.

I have seen attempts to blame this on the new DWP head. My understanding is that she was hired because of the extreme pressure on LADWP to get its electricity from greener sources. I doubt she knew anything about water. She had worked at PG&E which doesn’t deal with water, only gas and electricity. She did not come up from the department and I don’t think she has an engineering background (although she may). Her salary is of course, appalling, since it was double that of her predecessor. One would think that there would be someone in a subordinate position to hers in charge of water distribution to residential consumers, to commercial consumers, and for emergency purposes to hydrants for fire fighting. This subordinate should have apprised her of the risks of taking the large reservoir (Santa Ynez) of line to repair the roof. The DWP should have positioned many many water tenders that could be driven up hill from the Palisades so that the water would flow downhill from them to the hydrants.

There will be political fallout from the fires. Perhaps the most important is that the L.A. Times owner now says he regrets endorsing Karen Bass for Mayor. This gives cover to others to criticize Bass. It is interesting that the Fire Chief is willing to put Bass in an untenable position with her comments that Bass was warned about a possible conflagration yet ignored the warning. Now it also appears that a memo she sent to the Mayor was removed from the Mayor’s website or files because it would reflect poorly on Bass. Of course Bass’s promise to not travel overseas while mayor is being brought up as well as Bass’s participate in the 1960’s in the Venceremos Brigade cutting sugarcane in Cuba.

Bass is not out of the mainstream as a progressive Black woman democrat, although she will be painted as some sort of radical. I don’t think her policies are any more radical than those of Villaraigosa or Eric Garcetti. But Soon-Shiong wants to make competence an issue. If he can persuade others that the Democrats practice activist and identarian politics and that is inconsistent with pragmatism, then perhaps Karen Bass can be recalled and if not recalled, defeated in the next election.

It is worth looking at how the LAFD (and LACOFD) dealt with the fires after the first day to see what might have been. First the wind made aerial drops impossible, and it was those aerial drops that were most effective in stopping the spread of the fires. Second, it is not at all clear whether if the Fire Department had predeployed both Fire Department Assets and personnel, that those would have been in the Palisades. There are many areas of Los Angeles that contain hills with plenty of fuel for a big brush fire. Third, it does appear that the failure to have more firefighters ready to join in the fight hurt the attempts to save property in the Palisades. Fourth it appears that the failure to repair fire department equipment, which the Chief blamed on budget cuts also may have hurt to effort. There is no question that the problems with water exacerbated the ability to fight fires. Again the inability to tap the Santa Ynez reservoir for water really put a crimp in the ability to put water on the fires, but if the reservoir had to be drained for necessary repair, it makes more sense it was taken off line in January than during the traditional fire season of August through November. The one lesson learned is that if a reservoir is drained, the Fire Department has to pre position water tenders so as to make sure there can be a continuous supply of water.

Posted in California, Los Angeles | Comments Off on Analyzing The Politics Of The LA Fires