Fear! Fire! Foes! Awake!

In case you hadn't heard, Southern California is on fire.

Much more here.

UPDATE: Gahrie's blog has photos from his back yard.

Comments

[gahrie]

The hill behind my house burned tonight....pretty dramatic, but no real danger. The winds blew half of one of my trees onto my car yesterday. I've posted pictures on my blog.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Interesting how we don't have images of people in QualComm Stadium pleading for water in affluent, Republican San Diego.

"Thousands of people have sought shelter in schools, community centers and at fairgrounds. The largest gathering is at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, where evacuees are enjoying gourmet buffets and massages, but still anxiously watching television looking for news about their neighborhoods."

....George Bush cares about white people.

[Brent]

A&A, please tell me you're not serious.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I actually heard some news commentators discussing this this morning. Whatever the causes for the differences in the two situations, the disparity is interesting regardless.

[kcatnd]

A fire burned to the back fence of my yard in Orange County in 2002. Scary stuff. Awesome excuse for not finishing an English paper, though.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Here's another comparison between San Diego and New Orleans...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071023/D8SETS4G0.html

[Brendan Loy]

Whatever the causes for the differences in the two situations, the disparity is interesting regardless.

No, it's not. If the inherent "differences in the two situations" are sufficiently overwhelming as to completely explain 100% of the differences in the results -- which they are -- then the disparity is not "interesting" at all. It's pedestrian and obvious.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. The fact that "some news commentators" agree with you don't mean your position isn't ridiculous. There are a lot of ridiculous news commentators out there.

Defend your position on its merits, or retract it. Don't give us this "I'm just saying it's interesting" bullshit. That's intellectually lazy and cowardly. You just called the President of the United States a racist. Back it up.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I'm not saying Bush is a racist. I'm saying his policies favor affluent Republicans, who happen to be mostly white. Do you disagree with that statement?

As for "intellectually lazy," using a term "pedestrian and obvious" in lieu of details is just as "intellectually lazy."

"I'm not saying Bush is a racist"

"George Bush cares about white people"

Care to try that again?

[Derek]

You mean, a city with a Republican mayor in a State with a Republican governor are not experiencing evacuation problems, but a city with a Democrat mayer in a State with a Democrat governor did experience evacuation problems?

I think the snark can cut both ways.

Angry,

Haven't you grown tired of arguing with these folks? I thought you retired a few weeks ago after the kerfuffle about Brendan't attention grabbing ways and the posting of inane personal details on the blog.

[Brendan Loy]

The fact that I don't want to waste my time pointing out the numerous self-evident differences that make dealing with Katrina about 1,000,000 times harder than dealing with wildfires doesn't mean I'm "intellectually lazy." It means I recognize that I'd be preaching the choir with regard to my readership at large, since all fair-minded people already understand those differences and will recognize that they are far more significant than any alleged racism or favoritism on Bush's part, and beating my head against a brick wall with regard to you.

On the other hand, calling the President of the United States a racist on the basis of an entirely shoddy non-argument, then denying that you called him a racist when you're called out on it, and claiming you were merely suggesting that a set of facts is "interesting" -- when, in reality, you were making a very specific, racially and ideologically charged point about those "interesting" facts -- and continually refusing to actually defend your argument on its merits: that is intellectually lazy.

YOU are the one who asserted that the reason, or a big part of the reason, for the differences between New Orleans and San Diego is President Bush's alleged racism and/or favoritism. The burden is on YOU to back that up. If you can't, you should retract the comment. If you do neither, then yes, you are intellectually lazy, dishonest and cowardly.

[Brendan Loy]

Correction: "dealing with Katrina about 1,000,000 times harder than dealing with wildfires" is too nonspecific. We're not comparing Katrina to wildfires per se, we're comparing the circumstances of the evacuation efforts. It's in THAT regard that this situation is obviously, self-evidently easier to deal with.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. I'm saying his policies favor affluent Republicans, who happen to be mostly white. Do you disagree with that statement?

Not necessarily. I do, however, disagree that said statement has any relevance to the contrast between the situation in San Diego now and the situation in New Orleans during Katrina. And even if it does have some miniscule relevance, I disagree that it its significance is even anywhere close the significance of the obvious differences between the physical realities of the current situation and those of the Katrina situation.

Yo, knock off the No True Scotsman ("all fair-minded people"). Fallacies are intellectually lazy. Also, use of hand-waving terms like "obvious", "self-evident" and "clear" mostly highlights how one can't be arsed to produce an argument or evidence any deeper than "Because I say so!" Again, intellectually lazy.

Either don't feed the trolls or refute them better than this.

good point, anon. Any lawyer who uses the word clearly as much as Brendan when discussing an issue usually can't be bothered to get into the specifics of the argument. This is a fatal flaw.

[4-7]

They told us not to use "clearly" in law school but that rule goes right out the window in practice, so now foul - plaintiff and defendants attorneys use it all the time. It is what it is.

I love how Brendan is not only fighting my battle in this thread but is emulating my tendency to P.S. with post after post as I think over my own writings more and more.

Perhaps many of the delectible treats at the stadium are the result of private, non-governmental efforts to make the experience better. I doubt the government is paying the massage theapists.

The real reason for this post is to say what I should have said last night. Gahrie. The house next to yours is on fire in a city where like a bazillion houses are on fire. You should run away.

[Brendan]

This is a blog. To assume that I write legal briefs in anything remotely approximating the way I write bloggy prose would be... er... a fatal flaw.

Anyway, fine, I'll bite:

Hurricane Katrina paralyzed the whole infrastructure of an entire region. It flooded massive swaths of land, caused all sorts of wind and water damage, and knocked out electricity and plumbing and communication and pretty much all the things we take for granted in the Western world. (Hence the National Weather Service's warning that it would cause "human suffering incredible by modern standards.") This resulted in some rather significant logistical hurdles in organizing the post-storm relief effort, in keeping the people in the Superdome happy, etc.

The California wildfires are doing none of the things mentioned above. They are devastating in the areas that they burn, but they are not shutting down modern life as we know it in Southern California. This makes evacuation and relief and stadium-sustenance efforts substantially easier.

All of the above is completely obvious and self-evident, and anyone who would dispute it is either retarded or dishonest. Therefore I stand by all the "clearly"s and "obviously"s and "self-evidently"s and "All True Scotsman"s. They are entirely appropriate in this instance.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. Some things in life are, in fact, obvious. It is no sin to point this out. For example, it is obvious that the sky is blue, and that water is wet, and that Paris Hilton is a trampy idiot. I see no legitimate reason why anyone should shy away from calling things obvious when they are obvious.

Oh, and 4-7, I freaking pioneered the overuse of P.S. and P.P.S. and P.P.P.S. on this blog. I ain't emulatin' nobody. :)

why are you such a little prick when stating an argument? Smugness oozes out of your prose.

Of course, no doubt this comment will be met with the lame retort "but I don't write like a jerkoff in a professional setting, so it doesn't matter." Save it.

You haven't sniffed a girl as good looking as Paris Hilton from less than 50 feet.

I love it when ugly guys crack on good looking celebrities. I'm sure Paris will be saddened to know that you have rejected her. Honestly, just say she's immature, or a bad person, in your opinion. Misogynistic comments about her trampy-ness are unnecessary.

[Angrier and Angrier]

So are you saying that Bush doesn't care about white people? I'm not sure how my using that statement is the same as me supposedly calling the POTUS a racist. I'm sure Bill Clinton cares about white people, too.

P.S. Knowing Brendan as I do, I expect him to use the word "obtuse" in response. But now that I have brought this up, he won't.

[David K.]

It could also be pointed out that the wildfires are, while devestating and somewhat chaotic, their affect is being spread out over a longer period of time than the affect katrina had on New Orleans, atleast the immediate affect. Its easier (relatively) to deal with a fire that you can atleast partially control and partially predict where it will go next.

[Angrier and Angrier]

David K-

True. But you have to admit that the idea of "gourmet buffets" and "massages" strike quite the contrast to people pleading in the streets for water. I think I am justified in saying that the contrast between the two situations is "interesting," despite Brendan's belief to the contrary.

Of course the dichotomy is interesting. And only a person concerned/embarrassed/ashamed with his/her role as a pawn in a documentary designed to slag off white government react in such a knee jerk way.

I understand that Brendan may be unhappy that Spike Lee used him. Perhaps he feels stupid about the whole thing, and this is his way of puffing out his chest and declaring that what happened in N.O. was based on incompetence, not racial preference (a point I am inclined to agree with, BTW). In any event, I don't think most people fault Brendan for being diddled by Spike. We know Brendan's opinion about the failure in N.O. does not jive with Spike's hypothesis.

But to deny that it is interesting to compare the scene in Qualcomm with that in the Superdome is silly.

[Brendan]

I don't deny that it's interesting. I deny that Angrier meant nothing more than to say it's interesting. His intention was perfectly clear, whatever he claims now that he meant.

Anyway, anon @ 2:03 is right, to a certain extend. This thread is a perfect example of why I should stay out of the argumentative comment threads on my own blog. People with ridiculous opinions like Angrier's here make me sufficiently angry, and the ethos of the comment section is sufficiently rough-and-tumble and impersonal, and the desire to whack the low-hanging fruit with a really heavy club is sufficiently irresistible, that I sometimes lose my cool and express myself in a manner that is some combination of smug, arrogant, irritating, and over-the-top. I'm sure you could think of some other adjectives. This is exactly what I meant when I posted about the perils of righteous rage. It's also a good example of David's favorite cartoon, not to mention the oft-quoted, rather un-PC one-liner about arguing on the Internet.

Sometimes I think I'd be better off if I established a policy of never commenting on my own blog; only if a comment is sufficiently important to merit an update to the post would I respond, and my response would go in the original post (because I usually -- not always, but usually -- tend to be much more circumspect and self-aware when deciding whether to post something over-the-top on the blog itself).

Anyway, Angrier is still overwhelmingly wrong on this issue, but I would have been better off if I'd let his wrongness speak for itself, and/or let others rebut him.

Alas, this doesn't mean I won't make the same mistake again the next Angrier says something else dumb. :)

[Brendan]

P.S. For the record, I don't feel that I was portrayed unfairly by Spike Lee (I think his movie was ridiculously slanted, but the segment involving yours truly wasn't part of the slant), and anyway that has absolutely nothing to do with my motivation here. I have literally never even considered the possibility that I should speak out about stuff like this to somehow offset being in Spike's film. Never crossed my mind. And besides, I've always expressed the opinion that Katrina was incompetence, not racism, here on the blog and in my interview with Spike and everywhere else. So it's not like this is some new opinion I'm suddenly expressing out of shame because of my appearance in When the Levees Broke.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"His intention was perfectly clear"

They teach mind-reading now in Law School? Are you going to use that argument in a court of law at some point?

Sorry for asking questions. When I say that, I'm "intellectually lazy." When you say that, you're "preaching to the choir."

Nice going, Clarence Thomas.

They teach mind-reading now in Law School? Are you going to use that argument in a court of law at some point?

Like your dumbass comments are so subtle. Yeah, no one can get inside your head because you are just too damn clever. What a douche...

[Angrier and Angrier]

Hey look. The White House is comparing San Diego and Katrina...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071023202917.id05gobf&show_article=1

NOBODY would do that, now would they?

[Angrier and Angrier]

anon-

So what did I mean by the word "interesting?" Apparently it is crystal clear to everyone, yet I haven't seen anyone - including Brendan - accurately explain what I meant by it.

Brendan,

Thanks for taking my comments to heart.

[David K.]

Thats a stretch of a comparison at best AA, given that they simply reference the fact that in a previous disaster they learned lessons and aren't going to make the same mistakes for this second, quite different disaster.

As for the "interesting" thing, given your past comments and the end of the particular comment above, yes it is pretty clear what you were implying/meaning.

[teresa]

Immediately after Katrina, no one was available to help. Everyone in the area was dealing with the loss of power, etc. In San Diego, many people are available, and willing, to help. At least one news article Tuesday said food was delivered to Qualcomm by a truck owned by a supermarket chain. This was not government aid. The massages are also not provided by FEMA - individuals in the area have chosen to volunteer their time to assist the evacuees in some small manner. You can't/shouldn't compare these responses.

[Brent]

Yeah? Well, obviously interesting that you're just an asshole and you suck.

[Andrew]

They are devastating in the areas that they burn, but they are not shutting down modern life as we know it in Southern California.

Oh yeah? You try breathing this ash!

[kcatnd]

And that ash is falling into my latte! Maybe I should put the top up on the car.

Oh wait, I live in Pennsylvania now.

[Angrier and Angrier]

teresa-

Actually, Wal-Mart and other chain stores were sending truckloads of water and food into New Orleans after the Hurricane. FEMA wouldn't let them into the city.

You may not think it is fair to compare the two situations, but let's also not ignore what did and didn't happen.

[Becky]

AA,

I think you're being interesting, obtuse, obvious, clear and intellecutally lazy.

And I do think that you are dramatically underplaying the difficulty of getting the mountain to Muhammed after Katrina. The reason the gov't wouldn't let Walmart and other corporations into New Orleans after the hurricane was because the CITY WAS UNDER WATER and frankly, no one was really sure if exposure to that water was going to prove deadly or not.

It would be far more enlightening to compare apples with another fruit and not apples with cows. Katrina has a lot more in common with a severe blizzard--which also paralyzes transportation and often communication--than with a fire. Moreover, Southern CA is dotted with undamaged major ports, undamaged railroads, undamaged roads and a LOCAL government that isn't completely inept, despite what residents may like to say about it.

You know, when the Mississippi flooded in 1927, Calvin Coolidge told all the people displaced and all of the states begging for aid to suck it. He said that it wasn't the role of the federal government to protect its citizens from the whims of nature. Why do you feel like it's the duty of the federal gov't to intervene in a state emergency anyway?

I'm not sure that I agree that calling Paris Hilton a tramp is misogynistic (nor am I certain that calling her attractive is accurate). Is it possible that a young heiress who has spent the majority of her life flaunting her wealth and indulging in substance abuse deserve the scorn and derision of others? Moreover, as far as trampiness goes, it's an indisputable fact that Hilton has had premarital sex (oh scandal!) with a man she has no intention to wed.

I also think that you know you're an internet troll when you've resorted to defending paris hilton!

[Retarded Internet Troll]

brendan is clearly upset because ndls didn't prevent him from being used USED as a tool TOOL by spike lee. his writing here means he is doomed to be a failure in life and he is the worst. lawyer. ever. and also, his wife is fat.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"Why do you feel like it's the duty of the federal gov't to intervene in a state emergency anyway?"

Because the Federal Government says it will. If the Congress wants to eliminate funding of FEMA and "State of Emergencies," the role of the National Guard in emergencies, etc,and be held accountable by the voters for that decision, that is one thing. But to make the commitment to help states and cities in the event of an emergency and then the renege on that commitment in the middle of an emergency is simply wrong, unethical and verges on immoral.

[Becky]

Hmm...I thought the National Guard was administered state by state (aka, the National Guard of NY, the National Guard of FL) and that the federal government would take control of them in certain situations. Am I wrong about that? It's entirely possible.

I dunno AA. While I won't defend the federal government's inept response to Katrina, I do think that a lot of their failures came in the immediate aftermath of the storm and not, say the middle of that aftermath weeks and months later. Moreover, I'm not sure that it stands to reason that the federal government should bear sole responsibility for the failure of states like Louisiana to employ their own emergency management techniques. It's my understanding that FEMA acts in concert with state and local authorities. Maybe I'm wrong on that too.

I'm super sleepy.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

"The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system. The Army National Guard is part of the United States Army, comprising approximately one half of its available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organization. The Air National Guard is part of the United States Air Force."