And so, when we looked at these people, we have a $700,000 a year utilities czar in Los Angeles, and she cannot explain why there was not enough water, at least in a convincing way, because she’s never had to, because she was ideologically correct. You have an assistant fire chief who said, if women can’t—if I can’t carry out a man [out of a burning building], then that’s not on me. It’s the man shouldn’t be there.
It’s like saying if a child fell down a well, and I’m not physically strong enough to retrieve him and save him, that’s his fault. He shouldn’t have been in the well. Why does a person say that? Because she knows that she was appointed to that position on other criteria.
The same thing holds true, no need to get into the mayor, who people voted [for] as a DEI candidate. She said at one point, a few years ago, “Don’t blame the homeless for these fires.” So, we get—in conclusion in the Los Angeles catastrophe, there are whole areas of empirical inquiry that are put off- limits. You cannot talk about the homeless and whether there was a homeless person who was out in the hills, to get warm lighted a fire.
