Wildfires don’t care about DEI Public safety went up in smoke

In a fight between a good big man and a good little man, the good big man will generally prevail. In a straight-up shootout, a small female police officer is the equal of a large male predator. But police use their firearms rarely, and only as weapon of last resort, to stop a lethal threat or attacker. More regularly, their job, in a confrontation, is to subdue the suspect, and, if necessary, take him into custody. Here, the smaller, female officer is at some disadvantage.

The contest was more equal when police used impact weapons. A baton, nightstick, monadnock baton, Kubota, saps, and so on, allowed the officer to stun, control manouevre or incapacitate a recalcitrant suspect. A pistol displayed in the hands of an officer the felon understood was reluctant to use it, was probably less effective in affecting compliance, than a sharp blow to the wrist, elbow, knee, or shin. But impact weapons use has been banned by most jurisdictions as brutal, and control techniques like the knee-in-the-back, and the carotid choke have also been generally abolished – methods which enabled a trained smaller and lighter officer to subdue a larger opponent.

The female officer, thus found herself stripped of tools allowing her to protect herself and the public from larger male offenders. (Short of lethal force, the use of which would take her off the force and give her to the courts.)

Women were admitted into American police forces to correct discriminatory practices. But without the impact weapon, pain avoidance techniques, and the control of jiu-jitsu, the woman street cop is at a disadvantage. Most streetfights go to the ground, and, there, she is in danger. But government, which can never be seen as wrong, equaled the playing field. Under California Penal Code section 242: resisting arrest, is now generally charged only as a Class One Misdemeanor and prosecuted infrequently.

Then, in the 2020s California District Attorneys had shoplifting decriminalised. Any theft under $1,000 was allowed, and neither store employees nor the police intervened nor were allowed to do so — the cops, first hamstrung, were then ordered to “stand down”. Like the tactical evisceration, this move led to the (internally) logical suggesting that police be banned altogether. See: The Knock-on Effect: fairness in diversity hiring; fairness to suspects, then fairness to criminals, after which, there would be no need for police.

This adolescent confusion of fairness and justice has led our country to the last brink of dissolution. For the question is “who is being far to whom?” Is fairness to female officers unfair to the now under-protected citizens who pay them? Is depriving them of adequate offensive and defensive weapons fair to police?

We’ve had a decade of shrieking about “fairness”, by those unfit to ponder Milton Friedman’s: “When some government program is proposed to ‘help’ a group, we need to ask, ‘Whom does it harm?’” The question, historically (if aspirationally), was addressed not through a debate about “fairness and equity,” but through the process of jurisprudence.

Justice means deciding between the conflicting claims of two petitioners by reference to previously determined laws. A mature citizen understands that every claimant (himself included) initiates his claim with some reference to “fairness”, but that this fairness can only mean “That result I prefer”. Every loser in a court of law knows he was treated unfairly. The universal (and moot) claim of “fairness” allows the protestor potential access to the news-cam, the podium, and a leg-up in a court system dedicated to “Social Justice”.

There is no such thing as social justice. It means “fairness”, a metaphysical concept defensible, finally, only by a reference to “feelings”. But its application is easier (as improvisational) than a dedication to the codified common sense of the community, that is, Law.

Perhaps even more than that of the cops, the brotherhood of firefighters seems unlimited and inviolable. The police are always at risk, but much of that risk is potential, while the firefighter, every week in the career, will be working at on or in a burning building, at the end of the hose, or going up a ladder to save lives. Their mutual devotion, as Joe Wambaugh explained in Fire Lover (2002), grows, in shared, mortal danger, undertaken with the absolute assurance that his brothers will back him up and come for him unhesitatingly at the risk of their own lives. But, at some point, up the chain of command, that brotherhood was replaced by a commitment to “DEI”, a concept not recognised by fires.

Today, Los Angeles is still burning. My family was evacuated, and has just returned after two days to our house, which is still in the “warning” area. Many of our friends have lost their homes.

It has been known for decades that massive brushfires were fueled by debris and blowdown, which should have been regularly cleared.  On August 31, 2023 Circling the News reported that Pacific Palisades Community Council President Maryam Zar contacted her Assemblyman about concerns regarding brush abutting her land. “She was put in touch with Richard Fink, California State Parks District Superintendant II. He attended the August 24 Community Council meeting and explained that the state does not do brush clearance of park land because ‘we’re here to protect the natural habitat’.”

In an email to Circling the News, it was explained, “The department works closely with the Newsom Administration and other State departments to improve and expand forest management on state owned land to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildlife fires and improve forest and wildlife health.” But where the state land ends, habitation begins, and what unutterable fools would suggest a wildfire would respect the boundary? Answer: the Newsom Administration.

Brushfires on uncleared State Land have been devastating California for years, and the ecosystem Newsom’s commission was protecting did not extend to human beings and their property in the Palisades, or Altadena, or Franklin.  And, so, the largest and most catastrophic fire in Los Angeles history resulted from fairness. Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Bass, and Fire Chief Cowley, though not on the hose, have been in the frontline of the Struggle for Fairness.

Fire Chief, Kristen Crowley, wrote to the Board of Fire Commissioners on December 4, 2023, that budget cuts “have adversely affected the Department’s ability to maintain core operations”. Karen Bass had just cut 17.8 million dollars from the fire department’s budget. But according to CSB News, “When asked about the budget cuts at Thursday morning’s Press Conference (January 9, 2025), Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said they did not impact the department’s ability to handle the ongoing fires.”

Yet many hydrants had been stolen for scrap and never replaced, as periodic inspections had been cancelled due to budget cuts; and hydrants ran dry in the Palisades and in Altadena, where firefighters were reduced to filling their tanks from homeowners’ garden hoses. County officials said this (shortage) was to be expected due to the constraints of the municipal water system, which LA County Public Works Director Mark Pestrella said, is “not designed to fight wildfires”. (LA1st) One must ask why it is not so-designed, and, as always, what happened to the taxes we pay to insure public safety?

So where did the 17.8 million go? According to the department’s website: “Creating, supporting, and promoting a culture that values diversity, inclusion, and equity while striving to meet and exceed the expectations of the communities are Chief Crowley’s priorities, and she is grateful for the opportunity to serve the City of Los Angeles.”

Mayor Karen Bass just returned from vacation in Ghana during the fires, was interviewed by Sky News last week. Asked if she had anything to say to the victims of the disaster, had she any apology to make, and where was the money cut from the fire department, she remained silent.

---