Life-threatening' windstorm fans fires in Southern Calaifornia as blazes burn in Los Angeles

That's the whole point of DEI - is that there is talent across the board, so you might as well create a diverse team. More often than not,, less qualified white males get the job over other groups. Not the other way around.

 

Um… no.

The government getting in the middle of a hiring process is an incredibly dumb idea. The labor market is pretty dang efficient. If there’s an opportunity to get ahead, companies jump on it quick. DEI candidates are not viewed as a profitable move. Can’t fire them either when they do a poor job. Many conclude that it’s easier to just avoid.

 

We hired a lot of "woke" people in my company, because I, too, at some point believed in "diversity is our strength".

Unfortunately turns out that they were the worst employees - basically toxic activists who don't give a damn about the company's mission. A few of them are still there (and the few who are still there have somewhat toned it down), but most of them are luckily gone now.

It's not like I never gave it a chance. It's just that I got burned for doing so.

 

We all know "DEI candidate" is a euphemism for a minority. The labor market has always been biased. It's well documented and researched. And yes, diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones. The idea you can't fire them is b.s. as well.

 

Lol. “Labor Market biased” is surely not racist.

The idiotic comment about not being able to fire them is b.s…..is in fact b.s. Especially if you’re in a unionized, or right to work state.

 

Did Mayor Karen Bass really cut the fire department budget? The answer gets tricky

For those who love to read, LA times article from 4 days ago, not sure if it's been posted.

 

DEI candidate to me means an underqualified employee hired to achieve a diversity goal. Can be any race and also a woman.

Firing a DEI candidate means you'll likely get a lawsuit or EEOC claim. So, yes, you can do it, but be prepared for a legal cost drain and headache... and potentially bad press. Therefore many conclude that it's better to just avoid the situation. Hire the competent, non-diverse person and live drama free.

 

LA Times is a leftist propaganda rag. The owner is slowly waking up, like Bezos, after having funded that BS for the longest time. Leftist activists posing as journalists always contort themselves to misrepresent facts and "provide context" when the facts are clear and embarrassing for their side.

 

the article however is fair--questioning the source in this case is no more helpful than when the lefties seize on the WSJ or the NY Post. The Post is one of the few papers out there doing actual reporting on certain topics. I'd stick to considering the article on its merits.

 

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/califor...a?st=Nvt8Tg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

California’s Wildfire Climate Excuse
Gov. Newsom tilts at carbon emissions, not fire mitigation.
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 13, 2025 at 5:37 pm ET

Look out for “hydroclimate whiplash” coming to a media website near you. That’s the term the climate left is suddenly using to explain the Los Angeles wildfires, or to put it more baldly, to change the subject from the failure of the state and local government to contain the fires that often accompany Santa Anawinds.

The theory is that climate change caused two especially wet winters in California in 2023 and 2024. This led to lush vegetation growth. Perhaps you recall the ebullient stories about the blooming desert and wildflower explosion. But in recent months, the theory goes, climate change has also caused a dry spell that has turned that vegetation into tinder for fires. Ergo, “hydroclimate whiplash.”

So climate change explains wet and dry seasons, which follows the progressive line that climate change is responsible for every natural disaster except for perhaps earthquakes. In today’s climate orthodoxy, bad weather is always man-made.

This ignores that California’s climate has long been variable with dry years following wet ones. The nearby chart from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment shows precipitation in the state going back 130 or so years. There are wet and dry spells. The last couple of decades have had more dry years, but then so did the 1910s and 1920s when carbon emissions were far less than they are today.

​

The climate is changing, and human activity affects the climate. But variable rain and snowfall patterns in California are to be expected. Fires will occur as a result. Rather than blame the climate for wildfires, the obligation of public officials should be to prepare for them and, when they inevitably occur, mitigate the damage.

It’s on that score that Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Legislature in Sacramento, and the mayors of Los Angeles have failed. And, judging by the budget Mr. Newsom introduced on Friday, the Governor wants to keep on failing. His proposal skimps on wildfire prevention while boosting spending on Medicaid, green energy and payoffs to the teachers’ unions.

The last year’s stock market surge is giving California a revenue windfall from capital gains, and the state’s expected budget deficit has vanished. Mr. Newsom has $16.5 billion more to play with than he had anticipated.

Yet his budget for the coming fiscal year cuts the CAL FIRE’s “resource management” program by half from 2023 to $466.5 million. He plans instead to pay for $325 million in spending on wildfire and forest resilience with a $10 billion “climate bond” that voters approved in November. This is intended to free up general fund revenue for other spending.

Other climate bond spending includes $36 million for “sequestering carbon and reducing emissions” from ranches and farms; $47 million for “expansion of green streets, parks and school yards”; $80 million for “climate action through nature-based solutions” to “improve equitable access to nature”; $190 million for parks “in the state’s most disadvantaged communities”; and $228 million for port upgrades to support offshore wind generation.

None of this spending will mitigate future fires, droughts or floods or have any impact on global temperatures. In any case, Democrats have other political priorities than preventing fires or better managing its scarce water resources. Mr. Newsom’s budget increases general fund spending on Health and Human Services (mainly Medicaid) by $9.7 billion and failing K-12 schools by $4 billion compared to last year. His budget last year included $2.6 billion for “forest and wildfire resilience”—far less than the $14.7 billion provisioned for zero-emission vehicles and “clean energy.”

Despite their fervent belief that climate change will have catastrophic consequences, Democrats in California perennially underinvest in water storage and land management. Then when catastrophic fires, water shortages or floods happen, Democrats blame climate change as if there is nothing they could do about any of it. What the state really needs is a political climate change.

Appeared in the January 14, 2025, print edition as 'California’s Wildfire Climate Excuse'.​

 

Which part of the article do you find his false? Which facts in that article are misleading?

Perhaps you could read the article from this source which was already posted.

https://www.firerescue1.com/legisla...cut-the-lafd-budget-the-answer-isnt-so-simple

 

that said, if the net $50+ million increase is tied up in additional salary and pension/benefits to existing employees (with no new hiring or filling of vacancies), then the $17+ million net loss in the program budget for equipment, repairs, overtime etc. is still experienced as a budget cut.

Hence the word "tricky" in the article title.

 

Yeah what you are saying right now is blatantly unethical and you know it. I presume you are trolling - at least i hope.

I've never had trouble firing a woman or a minority. Of course I document performance carefully for ANYONE I've ever had on a team and have always been careful. EEOC claims are extraordinarily rare. So saying you'll likely get a lawsuit or EEOC claim is a bit nuts. I've heard of only one and that was when a pregnant woman was fired and her pregnancy was mentioned as interfering with her work - which was a stupid thing for a manager to say.

But the whole reason DEI exists is because of hiring practices like you are espousing. You're basically saying hire and competent white male over an competent minority to avoid any headache.

 

From the WSJ editorial board:

A rational response is to acknowledge that we must be adequately better prepared for natural disasters, and also taking a long term view of lowering carbon emissions to lessen all kinds of risks tied to climate change.

I agree that the emphasis at this point should
be on mitigation that is more direct and immediate.

The frustration is that because it is usually very difficult to definitively tie climate change to any particular weather event, people who are opposed to climate action on economic or political grounds will often seize on this to act like climate change doesn’t matter at all. It’s very narrow thinking.