Skip to content

Archives for gun

See all posts in the network tagged with gun

I Am A Bully

No comments

Curt Varone wrote an excellent post on the Fire Law blog today on the concept of cyberbullying,  this after a firefighter posted photos that could be construed as unflattering and might even go on to be considered hateful.  He even presented this poignant question: “How do we, as members of the Internet community, draw our own lines about what is and is not fair game when it comes to humor, satire and parody?”

So, after reading the post, I replied about how much I enjoyed the article and how it seems, to me, to be an issue of maturity and self-control, which we will talk about in a second.  After hitting the send button, I watched the extraordinarily funny video on the “People of Walmart” that he used as an example, and thinking it to be a good illustration of why I prefer not to shop at Walmart, I shared that video on my Facebook page.

I then sat and sipped on my triple espresso and began to write a sanctimonious post on how bullies were ruining the internet, blah, blah, blah…

The funny part about being introspective is that when you begin to practice it, you see yourself in a whole different light, and each time, you begin to see it more quickly (as in, before regretting it, sometimes).  As I began to write and speak about how people are different and we needed to be a little more appreciative of differences in individuals, it occurred to me that by sharing the Walmart video, I wasn’t any better than anyone else.  Not only that, I was a hypocrite, which is precisely the one thing I don’t ever want to be.

Curt asked this of us:

“Can we protect Jayden [the subject of the post] and still have our funny Walmart photos? Is there a line that can be drawn that makes one OK and the other not?”

In my comment to Curt, I stated: “I think that a lot of problems [in what could be considered cyberbullying] could be traced back to maturity and some personal self-control [sic].” Not a very well written sentence with the redundancy, but you get it, I hope.  My point, however was that there have been plenty of times where an inappropriate comment or reply has crossed my mind, something that in context might have been funny, even between me and the subject, but then I thought better of it. 

I believe, of course, that there is nothing wrong with sarcasm, cynicism, or even good ol’ fashioned sophomoric humor.  But the bigger question has always been: Do I want this attributed to me?” Or do I want it to be seen by people who see me as being above that?  Or is this how I want to represent Firehouse Zen?  Or the greater emergency services culture?

I said in that comment that it “almost” seems to me to be the equivalent of handing a child a weapon.  Given the outcomes of some of the more publicized events (suicide or retaliatory homicide), maybe that isn’t so far of a reach. The child doesn’t necessarily understand the power they are holding.  They don’t have a grasp on the gravity of the situation.  With the pull of a trigger, they can launch down an irrevocable path with unbelievable repercussions.  The child may mean absolutely nothing in doing so.  The action might even be the result of mishandling the weapon.  But regardless of intention, it still does damage.

The pro-gun folks could have a field day with this discussion, but it is completely relevant: How do we regulate something with so much power to change lives, so that those who don’t understand or can’t appreciate the outcomes don’t end up with the ability to hurt others?  Do we take it away?  Do we restrict access?  Or is this truly an adaptive issue we need to address not through a technical fix, but through a change in culture? I don't believe an across-the-board ban on internet speech is any more useful than an across-the-board ban on weapons.  But the million dollar question is how do we manage to protect the vulnerable from those who mean them harm, regardless of the context?

I have no doubts that there are plenty of malicious individuals on the internet.  I see them every day, cowering behind their keyboards, making references, creating innuendo, spouting about subjects of which they have no knowledge, and doing so without repercussion.  There are comments I read that frankly, make me think to myself that I’d love to meet that individual and push their f***ing teeth in. 

But while the internet is not for the weak of heart, it provides us the ability to share information that we couldn’t do before.  With the “send” button firmly pushed, I can converse with people in foreign lands, people who I would never have met, or may not ever meet, just because of the issues of time and place.  The thing I can see as being a precious tool that has changed my life can, honestly, also be used against me if someone so chooses, and with my being able to do nothing about it.  So just as we don’t go walking into saloons with revolvers strapped to both hips without expecting a fight, there are places and people and conversations to avoid on the internet as not to cause yourself to be the focus of someone’s “weapon”.  But honestly, I also don’t want to be a cyberbully either, so I must resolve to be what I say I am and not contribute to the distribution of the same material.

In reference to the Walmart video; it IS funny.  It is accurate in that these people have gone into a Walmart and been photographed in public.  And I concede that if you do these things, perhaps you open yourself up to a certain amount of criticism or ridicule.  But on the other hand, I found it pretty tragic as well. Really, who knows if some of these people aren’t suffering from an emotional disturbance or simply are clueless about how they look or what it is they are doing.  Like I have heard said, “They obviously don’t have friends or a mirror.”  You know, really, we should be instead grateful that we aren't ourselves suffering the same fate.

One person may not be able to change the world overnight, but we can at least give it our best shot.  Being human, I realize that I can’t control everything, but I can control myself and be a responsible individual and a good example for my family, friends and colleagues.  And while I may laugh, I need to do so in a way that isn’t mean or hurtful to others, despite how viral the laughing might be. 

Watch where you are pointing, because tomorrow, the pointing could very well be in your direction.

Posted by on February 25, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, leadership, News, Technology & Communications • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Your Altruism Is Hereby Noted

No comments

I was reading the never-ending stream of discussion on Dave Statter's site about the AZ fire department refusing respond to a structure fire three miles away from their station because the home was in an area that was not paying for fire service.  And we have had this discussion many times before, here on Firehouse Zen, a la South Fulton County and others.  And I am constantly surprised at the discussions that go on regarding the "pay to spray" concept, since, by now, I would have thought most communities in our nation would have gotten a clue and done something about it, one way or another, or would stop acting so surprised when it happens again.  And it keeps happening again. And again.

When I was a very young firefighter, I remember this very same kind of event occurring with a subscription fire department.  I also remember being outraged that something Ike this could occur. Really, we are altruists, we firefighters, and we do this stuff not for the pay but for the love of our fellow man.  Right?  But, some thirty years later and more jaded and cynical, I wade into this conversation with a dose of reality for you.  While it is great that we are all so willing to serve and to lay down our lives for others, there comes a serious discussion that is higher on the food chain than we happen to be.  This discussion lies at the feet of those who make these policy decisions, at the jurisdictional level, and with those who claim the fire service is gutting their wallet for all they can get, then act stupid when we tell them all this stuff costs money.

This situation is heartbreaking and I can certainly empathize with the homeowner, my own family having lost everything we had to fire when I was young.  But I also know from the perspective of a community activist: if a necessary service or facility is needed in my neighborhood, I work to fix it, or build it, or develop it.  I don't sit around and wait for someone else to do it.  If I were in a situation like this, I'd work with my local fire department to get them funding.  I would help with fund raising.  I would be a total pain in the ass to my elected officials and agitate to resolve the problem.  But I wouldn't just stick my head in the sand and hope nothing happened.

Please don't take my tone as being disparaging to those of you who feel the urge to help regardless of whether the person pays or not.  I certainly believe in selfless service to my neighbor.  I am happy to be there in their time of need and regardless of their ability to pay.  But I have a question for those of you who are getting emotional: "How many times does it have to happen before the elected officials in these communities get a clue and ensure that sustained funding is provided for fire protection?"

I feel stupid just repeating it, because the subject has been covered SO MANY TIMES; these trucks cost money.  The fuel to send them costs money.  The equipment on them costs money.  The insurance costs money.  The protective gear we wear costs money.  The station we respond out of costs money.  It's not even an issue of paying salaries and benefits; just the most elemental of operations at least requires the means to put out the fire and that requires funding. Do the citizens in these neighborhoods just assume the fire department will pay for these needs and they can get by without paying for the service?

You take a gamble when you decide to go uninsured, or in this case, live in a community who won't pay the bills.  While I agree that there are likely some contributing factors, it is as simple as this: If I lived in a community and there wasn't police protection, I'd find out why.  If the community leaders refused to help, I would do something about it.  Or perhaps (which will make the pro-gun advocates jump with joy) I would arm to protect myself.  But I wouldn't keep quiet and accept that I would be without help in the event I needed it.  

The real tragedy is that over the history of our nation, when "real" leaders realized fire protection was substandard, or too far away, or wouldn't be available to them, they organized their own fire protection.  In this day and age, one could even add sprinklers to one's home, you could be fire safe and maintain your home and property correctly, and if you absolutely had to, you could even provide your own fire apparatus (people still do this).  But even if one can't afford to pay a subscription, there should be some alternative solutions, like a community grant to pay for those who haven't the means, or maybe even some work equity to pay the subscription off.

This leads into discussion on the situation in these communities in regard to "service".  Volunteerism is a highly commendable and altruistic calling, not just in the fire service, but in many community services who lack the resources afforded to other projects.  I volunteer as an advocate for those with Down syndrome; I volunteer to help the homeless and hungry; I served for years with a camp for children who have vision challenges; and I support a whole range of other causes.  I would never withhold assistance to someone who needed help.  In fact, that is why we are there, to help.  But if the people who need the help can't fund the service, it is incumbent upon us, as leaders of these projects, to find out where to get those funds.  I may seek corporate funding, or community funding, or tax funding, or pay for things out of my pocket.  But the money has to come from somewhere, and if we were in the situation of helping someone who could afford help, I would certainly expect them to have some equity in the solution.

"Pay For Spray" is a pretty derogatory descriptor of the situation.  I would bet that the firefighters in these communities are challenged between doing what is right to help their neighbors and the elected officials who chose to abandon their responsibility for ensuring public safety needs are adequate.  This is not an enviable position to be in. But frankly, those of you who are so aggrieved by this situation should really consider moving to these areas and offering your services free of charge, putting diesel in using your credit card, and paying the light bill, because it sounds like they would love to have you pay for it all out of your pocket.

Instead of bashing the department's chief for having to make a tough decision, perhaps we should focus the blame squarely on those  who created the problem: The taxpayers and politicians who knew they had coverage issues and elected to abandon their neighbors out of convenience.  If you have a subscription service, as I said before, you'd better have an alternative plan in the event someone doesn't pay and you have to go into action.  And if the answer from the town fathers is, "Too bad", that should be widely known in the community, in the media, and everyone involved, and there should be no shock when it actually occurs, because trust me, it will.

 

Posted by on January 28, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, Funding & Staffing, leadership, News • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“What You Need” Continues

Comments Off

I originally wrote this on Christmas Day.  I was at my place, eating chicken and rice soup.  While I would have liked to be doing other things, I had some sort of head cold.  Knowing that what I really needed to do was to rest, it's certainly not what I would rather have been doing.  This isn't a desire for sympathy; I am making a point.  This action was not an act of selflessness but an act of necessity.

My oldest daughter is sick today, however.  I told her last week we would go geocaching today, and she has been talking about it ever since.  But yesterday she came down with a temperature and today, knowing she's going to have to go to school tomorrow, I'm not so sure we will be out looking for goodies.  This isn't making me very popular, but this isn't a popularity contest.  I'm the dad, the designated adult supervision, just like in my regular job as a Battalion Chief.

While in both situations this local crud is the topic d'jour, the whole point in even bringing this up is that I have a decision to make.  In one case it is for my benefit, in another, for someone else's. A conscious decision has been made on what must be done, the effects of the actions on others must be considered, and tough choices must be made.  I agree its a miserable way to spend your Christmas or a weekend, but its part of the situation I have to deal with.  I approached the problem using logic, not my emotions.  Hopefully I will be right.

This brings us back to the issue of what we want versus what we need.  It's the age-old debate of resisting temptation to do what we are supposed to be doing.  You know, the difference between doing what feels good at the time and doing what is going to be best for everyone in the end.  And you are going to have to bear with me, as I too am under the influence of cough medicine and other antihistamines, so I'm going to do something stupid.  I am going to wade into the issue of the frat house culture in many fire stations and why it is a bad thing.

Thus, I happen to have grown up in the fire service in a time where the horseplay and the antics were acceptable, so I have my share of "funny" stories.  Lately, none seem to be coming to mind, because frankly, I take a very dim view of that kind of nonsense going on in any of the stations I am responsible for these days, and with good reason.

We can use the business analogy and realize that again, our citizen taxpayer funding base these days also takes a dim view of a bunch of guys pulling jokes on each other while they are being paid good money to be productive.  I think the rationale is that "If I have to be miserable when I am working, so do you."  I don't think being miserable at work is absolutely necessary, but I'm sure it chaps the asses of a few in the community when they think you are more preoccupied in saran-wrapping a toilet than in protecting their loved ones during that 24 hour shift.

Even worse, though, is the negative implications these antics have in the community when they are seen by the public in regard to their trust in your ability to do the job.  And now more than ever, we need the public to trust us: trust us when we tell them they need to evacuate a building, trust us when we tell them we need better equipment, or are defending our budget, and to trust us when we are holding their lives in our hands.

So as hard as it is for some of you to rein in your inner advocate for either side of the issue, let's look at the REAL problem. The issue is that our culture should be one of quiet professionalism rather than juvenile behavior.  In the fire service, one of the issues we need to deal with is recruitment.  Do we want to attract individuals who exhibit questionable judgment and poor self-restraint?  Or those who will serve as pillars of the community?  If we act like we have a frat house mentality, we will attract those very same individuals.

But this post is not meant to suggest a solution to the problem of this behavior directly.  What I want you to do, rather, is to step back from the debate a second and view this situation, as Heifetz and Linsky so eloquently described, from the balcony.  

At some point, I would bet both sides could have agreed that this problem is one we agree on.  We would all like to keep those who can not be trusted to act responsibly off our engines and out of our medics.  This population would include "juveniles", the emotionally fragile, and those who have egotistical reasons for being in the fire and emergency services (because of the "power" they attain).  Each of those scenarios has their own factors we must deal with.

The real issue is that the solutions we seek are not technical in nature; they are very much adaptive issues.  And people with attitudes like those are incapable of utilizing adaptive strategies in handling problems.  The business of public safety requires individuals who can exercise independent decision-making in high-stress situations where their ethics are often put to the test.  And that's just in the station.  It is very easy for the new leader to want to make poor decisions or even just abandon the hard decisions altogether just because they want to remain "part of the gang".  We don't need more of those personalities; we need people who are capable of being grownups and being responsible.  We need real leaders.

The future of this industry requires a better approach to how we do the job.  It requires more than stomping our feet and saying that if we don't get our way, we'll hold our breath until we turn blue.  Trust me, there's more coming on the subject.  And like I told Emma when I gave her a dose of medicine this morning, it's gonna get worse before it gets better.  But yes, I omitted from telling her, you can get so sick by avoiding the medicine that you could, in fact, die.  If we really care about what it is we want to preserve, we need to make some hard choices and be the designated grownups.

Posted by on January 7, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,