The late Sam Kinison had a routine during the Ethiopian famine of the early to mid ’80s, with the famous punch line:
“YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A F—ING DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING’S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT’S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT’S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A F—ING DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR SH!T, WE’LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE’LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA — WE JUST DON’T LIVE IN THEM, A$$HOLES!” –From an appearance on Rodney Dangerfield’s “It’s Not Easy Being Me,” 1984.
While I recall the skit being quite funny at the time, Kinison was wrong in two ways:
First of all, and most unjustly, while the Ethiopians he was talking about did live in the desert, for the most part they did not do so willingly. They’d been transported there by the dictatorial government of Ethiopia, led by Mengistu Haile Mariam, who now lives it up in Zimbabwe under the protection of another fine African despot, Robert Mugabe, after being tossed out of Ethiopia in 1991 when his Soviet backers’ support withered and died. Mengistu was attempting to relieve overcrowding in the traditionally populated highland areas that were free of malaria and sleeping sickness by relocating people to the lowlands. Like many other such Third World Marxist schemes based on a combination of bribery and guns—think the low-budget version of the Great Leap Forward—it didn’t work. And of course, Mengistu’s government took the opportunity to transport people they didn’t like to places they were unlikely to return from… ever.
Second of all, a heck of a lot of Americans do live in deserts, among others big areas of Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, Eastern Washington and Oregon, etc. Unlike Ethiopians, who aren’t stupid enough to do so willingly, we choose to live in deserts, and we’re dealing with the consequences of that right now:
- Regular wildfires in the west, such as what’s going on in Los Angeles right now, as desert foliage—evolved to burn regularly but allowed to overgrow by the intervention of man—burns off. In fact, the Native Americans who lived in the Los Angeles basin before the Spanish referred to it as “Valley of the Smokes” so the problem is far from new;
- Regular mudslides in the same areas, because the soils cannot handle the drainage when rain does occur;
- A nearly dry Colorado River, Rio Grande and southeast;
- Crazy water rights regimes in California and other areas that price agricultural water so low that many farmers let it evaporate in their antiquated irrigation technology
- Salinated soils
The list goes on. As the planet warms (for whatever reason you wish to ascribe) and fresh water gets more dear, this is only going to become a bigger and costlier problem, unless some big technological breakthroughs, like cheap, i.e., energy-efficient, desalinization, happen.
Thoughts?
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
October 23, 2007 at 3:48 pm
If you are going to quote Sam Kinison, you need much MUCH LARGER TYPE. And a few more %*@$&*s.
October 23, 2007 at 4:55 pm
APO wrote:
###If you are going to quote Sam Kinison, you need much MUCH LARGER TYPE. And a few more %*@$&*s.###
Yeah, I decided to edit the expletives a bit, but maybe I should have put “expletive deleted” or “beep” in.
MPA
October 23, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Oh, here’s a video of Kinison’s performance:
October 23, 2007 at 5:19 pm
One really ironic and cynical thought occurs to me (nah, that never happens).
Given the very real likelihood of violent conflict over water rights in the 21st Century, I wonder if peaceniks will switch from “No war for oil!” to “No war for H2O!”? 🙂
This may not happen here in the US of A, but look out for the Middle East….
October 23, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Well, we may not be able to solve the big problems easily, but we can solve one small part of this right now: STOP PAYING RICH MORONS TO LIVE IN DESERTS!
NO Federal aid for California. NO subsidized insurance or water rates. NO reimbursement for losses due to fires or mudslides (or earthquakes for those living within 10 miles of the San Andreas fault).
I look at those living on those hills on TV exactly as I look at those living on the broad Mississippi floodplain under the shadow of tall bluffs. If you don’t realize you shouldn’t be there, I sure as heck shouldn’t pay for your idiocy.
And if you really want to live there, fine. But pay for your own darn choice. And don’t come crying to me when something that happens every year happens to you.
October 23, 2007 at 5:34 pm
APO wrote: ###Well, we may not be able to solve the big problems easily, but we can solve one small part of this right now: STOP PAYING RICH MORONS TO LIVE IN DESERTS!###
Well those are my thoughts exactly, but I think the problem is huge, as you note.
###Don’t come crying to me when something that happens every year happens to you.###
Indeed, sir, indeed.
October 23, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I would go further then AOC. If you are living with a mile of the ocean, when did you first learn about hurricanes? Look at the whole mess with Florida and home owner’s insurance.
October 24, 2007 at 8:21 am
I would go further then AOC. If you are living with a mile of the ocean, when did you first learn about hurricanes? Look at the whole mess with Florida and home owner’s insurance.
Sure, and I’d agree that government subsidized insurance shouldn’t happen there either. But there is an important difference between worrying about hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes and worrying about brush fires or mudslides in CA. Even in Florida, hurricane and weak tornado capital of the world (between 1950 and 1994, FL ranked #4 in number of tornados but #18 in damage), the yearly chances of a hurricane or tornado impacting your property is pretty small. Ditto with the yearly chance of earthquakes.
But if you live in certain areas in CA the yearly chance of a dangerous wildfire or nasty mudslide in your area is very high. If you live on a floodplain the yearly chance of a flood is very high. And the only things that mitigate those risks are lots of people working to keep your property safe against the natural course of events.
So the Floridian could reasonably say, “My overall chance of serious hurricane damage in 30 years is X%, I’m willing to accept that, and I’ll pay for insurance or savings to prepare.” The Californian has to say, “My overall chance of a serious fire over 30 years is nearly 100% but fortunately I can rely upon underpaid firemen and brave volunteers to risk their lives for my $2 million dollar firetrap.”
October 24, 2007 at 9:52 am
AOC wrote ###The Californian has to say, “My overall chance of a serious fire over 30 years is nearly 100% but fortunately I can rely upon underpaid firemen and brave volunteers to risk their lives for my $2 million dollar firetrap.”###
Yup.
Of course since many people like a good cry (this isn’t an American thing, it’s worldwide: witness the global popularity of telenovelas), the narrative is “poor dears burned out of their homes….” I wonder how many of them are being burned out for the second or third time?
October 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Oh, interesting enough, a lot of foliage causing trouble are eucalyptus trees, which aren’t even native to California, but are native to Australia, which has a similar climate (and a similar propensity to burn down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_bushfires_of_2003).
In other words, we imported and planted growing bombs throughout the state….
October 24, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I quite agree with AOC. I used to live on the west coast of Canada and yearly, we would have people who chose to live in the flood plane of the Fraser river complain that the government should do something whenever their homes were wiped out by flooding. Excuse me? It’s a FLOOD PLANE! Why do you think it’s called a FLOOD PLANE! It’s not called a dry plane. If you live in a flood plane, expect the occasional flood. Live with it (or float away… your choice).
October 24, 2007 at 3:35 pm
MPA Wrote:
### Oh, interesting enough, a lot of foliage causing trouble are eucalyptus trees, which aren’t even native to California … ###
I have a friend that lives in Pebble Beach near Monterrey. If you have a eucalyptus tree on your property, you get fined like a gazillion dollars. About 10 years ago when Pebble Beach burned, a lot of homeowners had planted eucalyptus tree — ’cause they are so pretty. The natural firebreak is the roadway which is 100 ft. wide and kept trimmed back. When these trees caught on fire they would explode and send flaming bombs of resin hundreds of feet in the air where those nice 80 MPH winds would spray them over to the other side. I dare say you don’t see eucalyptus trees in that area anymore.
They are also extremely short on water. You actually inherit water rights with the property you buy, so its not uncommon to see multimillion dollar houses with one bathroom. High winds, flames and no water—not a good combination.
October 24, 2007 at 3:41 pm
As I was watching the CNN news on the fires, one of the things I noticed which really ‘burned’ me up was how CNN kept connecting the fires with global warming and hooking it into their ‘The Planet in Peril’ special. They were interviewing environmentalists and asked about the connection. The lady who responded said “Well of course global warming is a contributing factor (not very emphatically), but also we have the failure of the homeowners to allow controlled burning off of the underbrush, and ..[a couple of other factors].” Clearly, she believed that the global warming factor was insignificant compared to the general stupidity of the homeowners in the area. Nonetheless, the CNN commentator, after her comments, went right back to his ‘Planet in Peril’ mantra.
October 24, 2007 at 3:46 pm
nwriter Wrote:
### …we would have people who chose to live in the flood plane of the Fraser river complain that the government should do something whenever their homes were wiped out by flooding…###
At least in the midwest States in USA, next to the Mississippi river, some towns built on the flood plain were actually moved to an alternate location on higher ground — cemetaries and all. Sadly, not very many. Even building your house on 20 foot stilts doesn’t help much when entire trees float down the river at 30 MPH.
October 24, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Let me be clear: I don’t mind if you choose to build your house somewhere I think is stupid (floodplain, fault line, barrier island, desert, etc.) I do mind if you demand that I pay you when the inevitable disaster finally occurs. Now, in the case of the Mississippi floodplains, I supported bailing them out once because they’d been sold a load of goods by the Army Corps of Engineers. Ditto for New Orleans.
But after your one free bailout: no more. Want to contract with Lloyds’s for private insurance at ridiculous rates? Be my guest: but no subsidies, or required insurance at price-controlled rates, or any other BS!
And, of course, none of this is meant to detract from the many stories of heroism, cooperation, and general good neighborsim arising from the California fires, nor distract from the shameless, exploitative, and biased media coverage and remarks from politicians!
October 24, 2007 at 4:45 pm
APO wrote:
###As I was watching the CNN news on the fires, one of the things I noticed which really ‘burned’ me up was how CNN kept connecting the fires with global warming and hooking it into their ‘The Planet in Peril’ special.###
Well, as I said earlier, we DO love a good cry, but a good scare will do in a pinch…. 🙂
Seriously, “California burning” isn’t a global warming issue per se, though climate change might well make it more (or less) extreme in certain areas as weather patterns shift. The larger issue of living in deserts is, however, going to be more and more of a factor as (a) populations grow and we therefore move into marginal land where people didn’t live before, at least not intensively, and (b) water demand goes up.
October 25, 2007 at 11:57 pm
The particular flammability of my current location on my travels has really hit home this year. Not -my- home, but other people’s.
It’s like someone put out their cigarette on the southwestern coast line.
The usual narrative out here is that population growth and corporate greed causes expansion into previously undeveloped areas causing harm to the natural environment and putting people in danger during these horrible fires which are completely natural, but only harmful because people live near them. If only people would die off and evil corporations would donate to Greenpeace then there wouldn’t be a problem at all.
It’s still not clear to me how corporations fit into the mix, but that’s how the story is told.
The Pavlovian response “Global Warming!” is the dullest part of the entire event. It’s like playing word association games with a moron — Wildfire -> Global Warming! — Flood -> Global Warming! — A new baby panda was born at the zoo -> Global Warming! — The earth as a whole is getting cooler -> Global Warming! — Banana! -> Global Warming!
The vast majority of wildfires in the past few years (certainly this year) were not caused by global warming; they were caused by arson. Lunatics and criminals looking for some attention or excitement (or somewhere close to Hollywood where they could put out a cigarette).
The point that environmentalist pressure against controlled burn off and residential brush clearing contributes to the intensity of the eventual wildfires is largely ignored. Maybe with less Global Warming ™, there would be fewer environmentalists, and therefore less uncleared brush on residential and federal land.
A 200 yard perimeter of nothing higher than mown grass would be a good start. But there are probably endangered squirrels in that brush, so you can’t cut it down. Lot of good it did them — who wants some freshly roasted squirrel?
At this point the people with the resources to bring disaster relief into place are largely the (evil!) corporations who can aim their annual tax write-off donations to a local aid station, donate temporary office space, and provide food and water to displaced people.
This charity on the part of large companies will be heralded for about 60-72 hours, then forgotten as they go back to being demonized for the environmental impact of the temporary shelters they helped finance and deliver.
Overall, I don’t expect much will change after these fires. Malibu will still be full of rich idiots replacing their now unfashionably flammable houses with this seasons new mud-slidable ones. Canyon Country will still be full of mismanaged wild-growing brush. San Diego will still be full of Transcendental Meditation enthusiasts.
Once the smoke clears, we’ll breathe easier and enjoy the clear skies again. That is, we’ll choke slightly less and return to merely our normal level of smoky haze again.
October 26, 2007 at 7:37 am
I definitely agree with the AI’s perspective, particularly his remarks about the “environmentalists”, who should really be named “preservation-at-all-costs-niks”. This idea that we need to preserve everything in nature because it has that natural beauty which urbanism deprives us of is ignorant of basic biology. How many cycles were learned there? The ironic twist to all of this, as I’ve come to understand it, is that hunters and fishers actually have a better grasp of being an environmentalist, something that should stick into the craw of the “P-A-A-C-niks”
Disclaimer: The AIH does work for a retailer of hunting and fishing gear
October 26, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Angry Immigrant wrote:
###The usual narrative out here is that population growth and corporate greed causes expansion into previously undeveloped areas causing harm to the natural environment and putting people in danger during these horrible fires which are completely natural, but only harmful because people live near them. If only people would die off and evil corporations would donate to Greenpeace then there wouldn’t be a problem at all.###
The fact that the narrative is written by dipshits is, of course, to be expected (California?), but it is true that people are living where they didn’t used to. Often land that was previously uninhabited was that way for a reason….
###The vast majority of wildfires in the past few years (certainly this year) were not caused by global warming; they were caused by arson. Lunatics and criminals looking for some attention or excitement (or somewhere close to Hollywood where they could put out a cigarette).###
The problem is that arsonists are only the proximate cause. They’re taking advantage of the fact that a situation exists of vulnerable houses scattered all over the place in a crazy development plan with uncontrolled underbrush in an ill-watered area. If your development plan depends on assuming that no psychos exist, it’s not a plan worth a bottle of rat piss.
###Overall, I don’t expect much will change after these fires. Malibu will still be full of rich idiots replacing their now unfashionably flammable houses with this seasons new mud-slidable ones. Canyon Country will still be full of mismanaged wild-growing brush.###
Of course things won’t change. The same damn thing happened in 2003 as is happening this year, and has happened before, because people are building houses in stupid places. That’s my point (if I had one). When the same thing happens over and over again, you have to look at what’s up beyond the proximate causes.
###San Diego will still be full of Transcendental Meditation enthusiasts.###
??? I thought San Diego was basically THE hardcore Republican area of Cali? Well that and Orange County. Not that these are mutually exclusive, of course.
October 26, 2007 at 3:16 pm
If your development plan depends on assuming that no psychos exist, it’s not a plan worth a bottle of rat piss.
Truer, if not more eloquent, words were never spoken…
October 26, 2007 at 4:11 pm
AOC wrote:
###Truer, if not more eloquent, words were never spoken…###
Thank you. Thank you. I’ll be here all week. 🙂
There are many variants. Here’s one:
Any plan that depends on the assumption your enemies are stupid is itself stupid.
etc.
October 27, 2007 at 2:12 pm
As a resident swamp dweller, I can assure you that only stupid people live in deserts…or in cities below sea level where floods and hurricanes occur frequently. 😉
November 1, 2007 at 7:31 am
Western Washington and Oregon are nearly rain forests. Eastern Washington and Oregon, though, are high plains deserts.
November 1, 2007 at 11:31 am
# Ry Jones Says:
November 1, 2007 at 7:31 am e
###Western Washington and Oregon are nearly rain forests. Eastern Washington and Oregon, though, are high plains deserts.###
Whoops, my bad. I got my directions backwards. 🙂 It is fixed now.
January 9, 2008 at 5:34 am
[…] His routine during the Ethiopian famine of the early to mid ’80s, with the famous punch line: “YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A F—ING DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING’S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT’S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT’S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A F—ING DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR SH!T, WE’LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE’LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA — WE JUST DON’T LIVE IN THEM, A$$HOLES!” – From an appearance on Rodney Dangerfield’s “It’s Not Easy Being Me,” 1984.” – Source […]
January 16, 2010 at 4:33 am
google