A Dreadful Fire in California

I was reading one of my favourite blogs today – Orphans of Liberty. They have a report on a really awful brush-fire in California:


No one know how the fire started, but because of the dry conditions and a strong wind, the fire spread like mad. Thousands of houses and other buildings were destroyed. People have been wondering why the houses burn down but surrounding trees were hardly affected. It seems that the strong wind blew embers through the trees which set light to any dry stuff which lay in the wind’s path. Many houses were wooden and themselves very dry.

Hundreds of square miles were affected, especially the town called Paradise. A strange name for a town, I think – a bit presumptive. It seems that there were many mobile home sites, home to many elderly people. Those sites were particularly badly affected because of the close proximity of the mobile homes to each other. With the tremendous heat and the strong wind, fire spread from one to another with ease. I think that the narrator said that a couple of hundred people were killed and many more missing. Many houses were built of wood.

If you watch the video, you will see why an awful lot of people would have thought of that area as being a wonderful place to live. It is almost bucolic, in the sense of ‘communing with nature’. In effect, it is as though people simply made a clearing in the pine forest and built a house. But it wasn’t the trees which surrounded those houses which caused the problem directly. It was the detritus which had built up in the form of piles of dry tinder – leaves and twigs and such.

Right at the end of the video, the narrator says the the fire is out and people can get back to burning their rubbish and gathered leaves as they normally do. It wasn’t said sarcastically, but you can get the drift. Who in their right mind would be burning piles of detritus like leaves at the end of summer in very windy conditions?

I would not normally be writing about such events happening thousand of miles away. It is because it happened in California. No wonder the town was called Paradise since Californians  seem to think that they have achieved perfection. What place on Earth has been more infantilised? Sea, sun, surfing, smoking bans, health clubs, gyms – all the paltry trappings that you can think of. Is it any wonder that the interior parts would like to seceded from the coastal strip? They are two different worlds. The interior parts are where people have real jobs, operating farms and herding cattle. They are not holiday makers or callow youths or retired people or illegal immigrants.

Infantilisation of the population of the world seems to be an objective of the UN, WHO, etc. Although those organisations and their dependent organisations pay lip service to the idea of young people getting fat as a result of spending too much time playing video games etc, they are happy with the fat situation because it enables them to attack multi-national corporations, like food companies. The infantilisation of people makes it easier for ‘The Elite’ to build their world-wide empire.

It would not surprise me one bit if people like Cameron (a Common Purpose graduate) and May had this idea in their collective minds, that National Governments, like the UK, were simply too weak to take on global companies. I feel pretty certain that when people like Richard Doll approached Tobcoms with the results of their studies about tobacco danger, they were much offended when Tobcoms laughed in their faces. It is hard to believe that Doll et al did not try to influence Tobcoms with their research findings. Only when they were rebuffed did they decide to play the long game. They were important and expert academics, not used to being laughed at.

Tobacco WAS a special case. I believe that Tobcoms were totally wrong not to take on board the evidence which Doll et al displayed to them. Despite the obvious epidemiological faults, the studies were very strong. It would have behoved Tobcoms to move into ‘harm reduction’ rapidly once they knew what was happening. Filter tips were introduced. I remember when the filters turned very brown, but now-a-days, they hardly turn brown at all. That is because the tobacco plants grown these days do not produce as much tar as they use to. There is far less tar in tobacco smoke these days than there use to be. And they should have commissioned studies showing just how little tar was still in cigs. In Canada, tobcoms and gov cooperated to find a variety of tobacco plant which produced little tar. Tobcoms made the terrible error of calling those cigs ‘lights’. I suppose that word was supposed to convey that the cigs were ‘light’ on tar, but the reality was that that word enable TobCON to castigate Tobcoms for pretending that ‘lights’ were not only less dangerous but not dangerous at all. It also, ultimately, enabled the Canadian Gov to avoid any blame for their involvement in producing the ‘light tar’ plants. It was, of course, a legal swizz.

There seems to be a point where politicians lose touch with reality. Kings used to have court jesters to remind them that they were not Gods. It seems that Jeremy Corbin is supposed to be PM May’s court jester, but he is not very effective. That is not surprising, since the court jester should be going on about the EU Empire, and not fictitious ‘austerity’.

I think that ‘The Elite’, such as Blair, see only political Empire as the answer to global industrial and commercial interests. That might have been fine, had it not been for the manifest persecution of ordinary people due to bans and taxes inflicted upon them in the multinational war.

To make things worse, ‘The Elite’ have decided to do everything that they can to stop people from taking their own decisions to diminish the power of multinational companies, especially Tobcoms. Rather than decrying ecigs, they should have given small ecig companies tax-breaks.  Even Juul is better than combustibles, and should have been given tax-breaks. After all, the tobacco in Juul ‘heats’ is still heavily taxed. Perhaps they are afraid of being accused of taxing ‘harmless’ products.

There is a political ‘fire’ burning fiercely in the UK at the moment. London is like the coastal strip of California. It should be surrounded by barbed wire and watch towers, armed with machine guns. Armed guards should be posted around the perimeter to check passes in and out.

The people voted ‘TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION’. That is a political decision and not a trade decision. I doubt that the vast majority of people who voted for Brexit were bothered about trade. But nobody has asked them in a poll. Is that not weird? Or nobody has taken any notice, and the results of such a poll have not been given prominence on the BBC. Thus, such a poll could treated as ‘fake news’, even though it was not.

Why did the majority of the people vote ‘TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION’? It can only be that they were sick to death of ‘directives’. Each individual voter might have a particular ‘directive’ which he/she abhors, but what is important is that the collective will was to cut the crap.

Yes, some time must be allowed to elapse before foreign fishing boats are excluded from our fisheries. That is reasonable. The only decision required is the period of time. Each decision exists on its own merits.

But ‘leaving the EU’ has little to do with those decisions. Brexit is about dis-empowering the unelected ‘Elite’ from telling us what to do. As a simple example, ecig liquids should not be limited to 10 cc bottles and snus should not be banned.

Is not the answer extremely simple? Just make it known that such regulations no longer apply. There is nothing complicated about it. There really is no reason for a Parliamentary debate. Just ‘make it known’. Vape shops can sell liquid in as big a container as they like, and tobacconists everywhere can sell snus. They can also all sell Juul.

At a stroke, TobCON would lose any purpose.

Not long ago, maybe fifteen years ago, my golf club had low alcohol beer on draught. It was not popular, even though it tasted quite nice (I tried it). Why was it not popular, in view of the stringent ‘driving under the influence’ laws and penalties? I think that most members though that drinking low alcohol was ‘cissy’. They would rather drink less ‘proper’ beer than drink ‘cissy’ beer.

Perhaps TobCON relies upon smokers NOT opting for ‘cissy’ ecigs and such. If I got the same pleasure from Juul, I might go for it, but I am damned it would do so if the ‘heats’ were taxed at the same rate as cigs. The words ‘tobacco products’ are too general to differentiate between good and bad. You might as well lump together cabbage and chocolate cake as equally fattening.

It is weird how important Gov departments, like the FDA (Federal Drugs Admin) in the USA, can manipulate data like Juul use amongst schoolkids, to deprive ALL the people of of the benefits of Juul (if those benefits are are real, in the sense that the tobacco cigs are really as bad as painted.

I vaguely suspect that the dangers of today’s tobacco cigs are grossly overstated.

%d bloggers like this: