I support firemen
But too many firemen are being injured or killed in wasteful exercises of their power. Fires continue to break out. Buildings, forests, and local chaparral continue to burn. Fire fighters continue to risk life and limb in an ongoing fight against new fires. Whatever tactics those in power are bringing to bear against the threat of fires, they aren’t working. At the very least, we should refuse to support this kind of mismanagement.
Therefore, I propose the following rules to be enacted into law.
- Stricter rules of engagement in fires, including strict limits on how close any fire fighter may approach a fire. In no case should any fire fighter actually enter a burning structure.
- A strict timetable for removal of forces from any particular fire. If a fire can’t be brought under control within a reasonable time period, it should be declared a lost cause, and a strategy of containment should be implemented.
- Eventual redeployment of fire fighters away from high-risk areas. Fire stations in high burn risk areas will be closed down, and fire fighters will be redeployed to desert areas, wetlands, glaciers, and salt flats, where their risk of injury will be greatly reduced.
I encourage everyone to write, call, or e-mail their legislators and encourage them to adopt this three-point firefighter support plan at once.
| More from Karl Lembke
Stumble It!
March 15th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
So more laws will help? While I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of creating better rules of engagement, for safety and risk management purposes, why does it need to be a government initiative?
We have insurance companies, labor unions, and educational programs that can all be aimed at the problem. There are other nonviolent ways to encourage people and businesses to take as little risk as possible. How is aiming the guns of law enforcement at this problem an “improvement” over voluntary and incentive-based programs? I am with Lembke in spirit, but I guess I’m just not seeing the real wisdom in adding more laws to the millions that are already on the books.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
RestoringGuy
Its a metaphore dude…..Replace the word “fireman” with “troops” and ask yourself how the article reads…..What he is saying is that yeah being in the military is dangerous thats what you signed up for….Troops are needed in DANGEROUS places not in places that are safe.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Ah yes. Something indeed smelled fishy. Now before we go ahead with this brilliant government firefighting safety program, we should first prohibit use of privately-owned fire extinguishers, spray gasoline on ourselves, and then give a pack of matches to anyone wearing a costume. I like it.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:10 am
There should be no need for firefighters at all. Except for a statutory fire-prevention and negative fire manager role in every building, including homes. And fire detection personnel of course. Fires are intrinsically bad. They are ‘masculine’. Laws should be introduced to prevent fires from breaking out. Anyone who has a fire or even a heater in their premises, making it an unsafe workplace, should be fined. If an employee or member of the family strikes a match, the head of the household – or a man if its a single mother small business/home – should be hauled before a special anti-fire tribunal and fined heavily. Every building must have a fire manual to be poured over by lawyers whenever a match is struck and a fire committee. Even heat should be forbidden. Any means of warming must be repressed. If a person in the building even ‘feels’ warm, the building owner should be fined massively, whether a heater was turned on or not, whether the feeler was having a hot-flush or not. Indeed, hot flushes should result in a man being fined to ruination.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:20 am
After any major fire, Michael Moore could come out with a documentary showing what the building or section of forest looked like before those nasty firemen invaded.