Tags
"Fire — bad!"
(Photo Source: Chris Doolittle)
The other day I sat down to eat and decided to turn on the news. I
wanted to get an update on the raging fires in southern California.
Since CNN and MSNBC both had some sort of talking head type person
doing their own bit, the only actual up-to-the-minute news I could
find was on FOX.
I don't like FOX news. In fact, I often ask myself if they are really
even a news channel or just some sort of propaganda agency. But I
figured that for what I wanted — just a report on the California
fires — that I wouldn't have to worry much about politics.
Guess again. The first thing I heard when the news came on was the
reporter talking about the possibility that the fires had been the
product of arson — and perhaps had been works of terrorism.
"Oh jeez" I said to myself. I had been through a similar thing earlier
in the year here in the Pacific Northwest with our local fires. There,
the commentary on every single fire seemed to be that it may have
been started by "a cigarette smoker." I ask you how they could possibly
have any proof of that considering that most of the fires were spread
over thousands of acres and that there was no way they could have done
that kind of minute forensics since the fires began. But as the old
saying goes, "don't confuse me with the facts." It was a good opportunity
for the anti-tobacco people to get in another attack against smokers and
smoking.
And now this. Now, assuming for a minute that there are terrorists that
want to attack our country, and I think that's a pretty safe assumption
given that some of them have actually stated such, I wonder what the
likelihood is that they would choose fire as the method of choice. Seems
a little "low tech" compared to their usual methods. Granted, I suppose
there could have been some extremists sitting around somewhere here in
the U.S., waiting for some sort of opportunity to present itself. Very
dedicated, they would do nothing but watch cable TV all day, including
the Weather Channel. Then, hearing about high winds and dry conditions
in southern California, they would hop on a plane, go to San Diego, buy
a half dozen cans of gasoline and go out and set fires here and there.
Is it possible? Maybe. Is is probable? I sincerely doubt it. My guess is
that if any of the fires were purposely set that it would be the work of
those types of people who normally do things like that — the nut-case
that lives a few doors down from us and moved in just about the time the
neighborhood cats started disappearing.
Blaming things like the California fires on terrorism would be like
blaming hurricane Katrina on terrorism. And there is really no doubt in
my mind that some people would have done that if it had been at all
possible. Hey, who knows, right? Maybe Osama Bin Laden has a secret group
of brilliant scientists in his employ who are controlling the worlds
weather and were able to manufacture Katrina from their secret base in
wherever the hell it is they're at.
You know, there's your solution to Global Warming right there. We
can ask Osama and his secret scientists to fix it all up for us.
edwardpiercy said:
And what about greed, too. With the property values in southern California being what they have been over the past decades they haven't exactly been too keen on such things as Fire Lanes. I hate to say it, but it's true.But basically, I think it's just Mother Nature reeling from abuse. I haven't heard about the deliberate acts you speak of, Richard. After going through that the other day I haven't even bothered watching the news. I thank you for filling in on what I've missed over the past couple of days.Did watch the World Series, though — lol.
musickna said:
For any foreign terrorist who might have thought to start the Californian fires, there are a dozen home-grown nuttere who will get there first. It does seem like some of the fires were set deliberately, alas. What bugs me about the so-called 'war on terror' is the complete absence of any perspective in resources committed vs. the real threat. The trillions of dollars spent in Iraq might well make for a far greater benefit in lives saved if they were devoted to local law enforcement and social services.
juliestalkingharp said:
Michael Reid spent a good part of his KYRS radio show (Does That Answer Your Question) last Thurs. talking about Fox News innuendos that terrorists are to blame for the fires. As he pointed out, innuendos worked really well for Bush in linking Iraq to 9-11. Some people like my ex still believe it. Anyway, Fox talked about an FBI memo issued "3 days or 5 days ago" (actually 3 years ago) by a detainee (probably tortured to say anyting to stop the water boarding even though we don't torture anyone) referring to fires (not in CA but in places like Montana and Wyoming). So why wasn't Fox making links to terrorists when western Montana was in flames last August? Blaming the fires on terrorism is certainly a way of moving the discussion of causes away from global warming. Much more exciting news to blame terrorists than ordinary arsons or climate change. Much easier to make up terrorist bad guys at work than go after global warming bad guys. Global warming bad guys? Fox would probably finger Al Gore and Leonardo DiCapri as the villians. And looking through Fox tinted glasses, people would probably believe it.
edwardpiercy said:
Thanks for your great comments, Julie. I appreciate you taking your time to do them!And BTW, Waaazzzup?
doleon said:
That's will be another reason to find him! That evil man!I'm realy sorry to see that kind of things happening!Bush, BinLaden and other crazy people of this world should burn in a fire like this with one condition "to be burne on the March"!All the best!