• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OpEd: The Case For Letting Malibu Burn

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
OpEd: The Case For Letting Malibu Burn – Press California

During fire season, I always think about Mike Davis, author of one of the most — pardon the pun — incendiary essays in the annals of SoCal letters: “The Case for Letting Malibu Burn.” I return to this chapter from his book “Ecology of Fear” any time that the Santa Ana winds howl and thousands flee raging infernos — a ritual that used to happen every couple of years but now seems to happen every couple of months.

“The Case for Letting Malibu Burn” is a powerhouse of history, science, Marxist analysis — and a certain amount of trolling. Its main point is that Southern Californians will never accept that fire is not only common here, but part of our ecology going back centuries. To spend millions saving homes in areas never meant for neighborhoods and power lines is not just folly, but a waste of public resources.

The only solution is to stop rating my fire insurance in a city of concrete with those in fire prone areas. They use my low risk to pad their high risk customers.

Again, Chuckiechan Sixpack is getting boned by the elitists who run the insurance companies. It is probably not legal in California to pick and choose who you insure and who you don't. So I say, let them burn, then turn the area in to a public campground.

The need to change the state seal from EUREKA to BOHICA!
 
How about the case for not helping people in the Midwest when there are tornados or massive floods? They chose to live there after all and many of them in flood plains....so why should the rest of the country help them?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
OpEd: The Case For Letting Malibu Burn – Press California



The only solution is to stop rating my fire insurance in a city of concrete with those in fire prone areas. They use my low risk to pad their high risk customers.

Again, Chuckiechan Sixpack is getting boned by the elitists who run the insurance companies. It is probably not legal in California to pick and choose who you insure and who you don't. So I say, let them burn, then turn the area in to a public campground.

The need to change the state seal from EUREKA to BOHICA!

That site seems rather insane. But, if you don't like California so much, why don't you move?
 
How about the case for not helping people in the Midwest when there are tornados or massive floods? They chose to live there after all and many of them in flood plains....so why should the rest of the country help them?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

They dont keep landing on the same tiny town.

MALIBU FIRES
 
How about the case for not helping people in the Midwest when there are tornados or massive floods? They chose to live there after all and many of them in flood plains....so why should the rest of the country help them?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

No question too many people continue to live and build in harms way. It was one thing when we did not know. If you want to live in harms way then be prepared to have to pay for your stupidity.

The question is should those that choose to live in a safer area and spend their money on other things be forced to subsidize those who choose to live in harms way. It is one thing to get caught up in the 1 in 10,000 and need assistance. It is another to rebuild where we know there will be problem every year or so.

I watch people in my area get flooded every couple of years and continue to get cheap flood insurance and force me to subsidize it. I would love that house on the river manor or the beach front home. If we all move in to harms way there will be no one to subsidize the cost of living there. I say it is time to stop forcing people to pay for someone else's I don't care attitude. It is time to stop rewarding bad behavior and start rewarding good behavior.
 
You would think that people that live in fire prone area wold build the houses with materials that don't burn.

That would make sense to me.
 
How about the case for not helping people in the Midwest when there are tornados or massive floods? They chose to live there after all and many of them in flood plains....so why should the rest of the country help them?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

I think the far right conservatives don't want us to help the people in Malibu because the many of the people living there are democrat leaning. trump is happy to send assistance to red states like Texas and Florida but New York, Illinois and California he just sends threatening tweets.
 
You would think that people that live in fire prone area wold build the houses with materials that don't burn.

That would make sense to me.

You would think people that live in hurricane prone areas would build homes that are hurricane proof. How many times have the people in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, North and South Carolina been bailed out after hurricanes? And after billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted helping them, they go ahead and build homes that aren't hurricane proof. Too busy inbreeding and playing with their frigging guns.
 
The Tornadoes seem to rip up a lot of Trailer Parks...Same White Trash on the News saying...."we lost everything even the beer"...Do tax payers need to keep covering for them?

And the trailer trash never take out private home insurance and then whine when their meth labs are destroyed by the tornadoes, hurricanes etc. If you don't have insurance - stop asking for SOCIALIST handouts from taxpayers.
 
You would think that people that live in fire prone area wold build the houses with materials that don't burn.

That would make sense to me.

California bosses are claiming that global warming is why they are having so much destruction (They are lying, but that is another story), and that it will get worse as far as the eye can see, so why are they not mandating that Fire Proof homes be the new standard?

I hope they are not expecting the kids/grandkids/unborn to keep rebuilding fire after fire on Uncle Sam's Credit Card.

That is not a sustainable plan.
 
You would think people that live in hurricane prone areas would build homes that are hurricane proof. How many times have the people in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, North and South Carolina been bailed out after hurricanes? And after billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted helping them, they go ahead and build homes that aren't hurricane proof. Too busy inbreeding and playing with their frigging guns.

Yo have only been here a short time.

Do you ever comment on the subject of the thread, or do you always do this?
 
Yo have only been here a short time.

Do you ever comment on the subject of the thread, or do you always do this?

Well it is was a follow up to the idiotic premise of the thread....Just more babbling non sense and California bashing...Should be ignored I suppose
 
Went to order it on Amazon and while "Ecology of Fear" is from 1998, it wont be available on Kindle til March 2020?

So...guess that one's going to have to wait.

Uhhh... Hmmm.... LOL. Talk about vapor ware. (or smoke wear).

FYI: I live in Sacramento - about 80 miles south of the fires. While driving yesterday, I calculated my visibility to be ~ 1/2 mile. And it's been this way for days. I live near the converted Mc Clellan AFB, and they are using airliner size aircraft to drop fire retardant, and they have at least one 747 tanker/retardant dropper.
 
Uhhh... Hmmm.... LOL. Talk about vapor ware. (or smoke wear).

FYI: I live in Sacramento - about 80 miles south of the fires. While driving yesterday, I calculated my visibility to be ~ 1/2 mile. And it's been this way for days. I live near the converted Mc Clellan AFB, and they are using airliner size aircraft to drop fire retardant, and they have at least one 747 tanker/retardant dropper.

We postponed our trip to early Dec. I was not flying my 83 yr old mother into San Fran where they were handing out masks.
 
Regarding California, legend has it than when Native Americans saw white people moving back to San Francisco after the ‘06 quake/fire, they ran away to the mountains to live in caves, seeking to get as far away as possible from the white man’s madness. Fire and water have been a part of my state’s wierdness for more than a century. Consider: the crooked history of LA, a city with no port, no navigable river, made possible by corrupt creation of wastelands elsewhere (cf “Chinatown”) aka why does the San Fernando Valley exist?; people building homes on dry hills with lots of scrub brush; growers since the 1970s-80s planting trees and vines on the west side of the great San Juaquin Valley, instead of crops they could plow under when water is scarce, esp. thirsty almond trees grown for export (naturally, Trump sided with the wealthier growers “there is no drought” in the quarrel with northern Calif vineyard owners over water); and suggestions that letting water flow into the SF Bay and then the ocean is wasting it, though it is essential for the health of the delta and for salmon, no doubt cause smaller growers and salmon fishermen have less pull than orporate agriculture. Of course, I write this living in a wood frame house in the hills in the East Bay, where dynamite sticks, known otherwise as oil-filled eucalyptus trees, abound.

Madness.
 
Houses on the beach, on rivers, in dry timberlands...people do stupid things. And, insurance covers it.
 
California bosses are claiming that global warming is why they are having so much destruction (They are lying, but that is another story), and that it will get worse as far as the eye can see, so why are they not mandating that Fire Proof homes be the new standard?

I hope they are not expecting the kids/grandkids/unborn to keep rebuilding fire after fire on Uncle Sam's Credit Card.

That is not a sustainable plan.

Might it be possible that both things are true: foolishness in building in certain areas, and increased catastrophes in the form of greater storms, floods, and fires as a result of warming? Walk and chew gum at the same time.
 
Might it be possible that both things are true: foolishness in building in certain areas, and increased catastrophes in the form of greater storms, floods, and fires as a result of warming? Walk and chew gum at the same time.

Be able to adapt, take reasonable measures to be ready for what looks like is coming, this is what the history of human civilization teaches is required for survival.

This California does not do.






EDIT: History also teaches that trying to stop change is usually a fools errand.
 
Be able to adapt, take reasonable measures to be ready for what looks like is coming, this is what the history of human civilization teaches is required for survival.

This California does not do.






EDIT: History also teaches that trying to stop change is usually a fools errand.

We do it, but imperfectly.
 
Spare me the "We are doing the best we can".

That is a lie.

Look, capitalism is an extremely powerful force. It’s creative energy frequently overcomes common sense in building codes, granting development permits, etc. We pay the price, then make reforms, then ingenuity and politics trump that reality, evading rules and creating different problems.
 
Back
Top Bottom