No money, no squirtey

If you think this makes me an evil, heartless right-wing extremist SOB, then so be it.  I don't call people morons often, and never generically, but in this case, you are a moron.  Specifically.

There's outrage in northern Minnesota after firefighters allowed a man's mobile home to burn.

Outrage, I tell you.  Sheer raging outrage, which in itself is outrageous.  That there's outrage, I mean, about which I am truly...outraged.  And what, I ask, fuels this righteous fire of furious, indignatious ignition?  What great miscarriage of justice has left a poor, hapless citizen alone at the mercy of those horrid, merciless agents of the BATF local firehouse and whose only hope is the saintly estate of journalism?

Carl Berg had failed to pay the 25-dollar annual fee required for fire protection for homes outside International Falls city limits.

Berg says he couldn't afford the fee or fire insurance. He says he lost everything in last month's fire.

Oh.

Pardon me whilst I work up some outrage over that.  (Grunt)  Dang, can't do it.  Sorry—I tried.

Twenty-five bucks, folks.  That's not per month.  That covers you for a year.  Toss 49 cents into a coffee can each frickin' week and you'll still have 48 cents left over at the end to blow on a half-order of those chicken nugget-like things.  I'm sorry, but in this country, no matter who you are, no matter what you do, if anything, no matter if you're on welfare and food stamps or just what you can bring home panhandling, you can afford $25 per year to pay someone to stay on call, equipped and ready to come and put out a fire.  This isn't rocket science (because if it were, it'd cost $25 billion per year just on standby, plus a couple hundred million for each actual trip, at least NASA's way).

But I digress. 

Oh yes.  Outrage.  There actually are folks who have enough outrage to spare, just sitting around, that they can throw it away on this kind of absurdity.  Must be a Really Slow Day for Social Inequity and that sort of thing.  Notify UNICEF that it's time to bomb some more Smurfs.

The Fire Department poured enough water to put the fire out temporarily and make sure everyone was safe. But when the blaze rekindled later, firefighters let the flames destroy what was left.

Fire Chief Jerry Jensen says he doesn't want to see that happen again. He says a firefighter's job is to "put out fires, not to watch them burn."

Now, at first this might carry the Appearance of a Stupid Thing to Do.  I mean, seeing as you're already there with your truck and hoses and everything, would it have hurt to have added a little milk o' human kindness to that water and help a guy out?  I mean, like the man said, isn't that, like, your job and all?

Local officials have been haggling for two years over how to pay for fire protection.

There's your answer.  Yes, it would have hurt to have put out the guy's fire.  If a man can't won't pay a mere pittance like $25 per year for the privilege of public fire protection (and yes, someone somewhere has doubtless already referred to fire protection as a "right") then give me some reason the faithful, law-abiding, bill-paying taxpayers of International Falls should pay up one cent for him!  Because they're nice guys?  I might fall for that one if we were discussing a legitimate hardship, but this is beyond ridiculous.  If local officials have been haggling even one day over how to pay for fire protection, it's one day too many.  You've evidently already got a mechanism in place to pay for it.  Carry it out like you would anything else.  If you don't pay your power bill, the man comes over in his little truck and does mean, restrictive things to your access to electrical current.  Even in winter.  Even if you're "poor."  And over a lot more money than $25 per year.

It's neither mean, heartless nor even strict to demand the same accountability for fire protection.  It's everyday common sense.  And I've already ranted way too much over such a small thing, but way down inside I don't really think it's a small thing at all.

The idea of simple, basic personal responsibility is a foreign concept to millions of otherwise capable Americans because their elected representatives have discovered that it pays (it pays the elected representatives, that is) to convince you that you have none and should have none.  That all you need to do is trust your friendly neighborhood government to take care of you, womb to the tomb.  And you may not even owe $25 per year—not if we can get those Evil Rich People to pay it for you.  (All they'll have to do is lay you off from your job in order to afford it.  Evil Rich People do seem to employ a whole lot of Other People, Evil or Otherwise.)

To these people this issue is hardly an absurdity—it's the foundation for their worldview, and the basis for their claim to power, not to mention money.  Your money, without which they can't finance their airplane trips from coast to coast to tell you how they need you to tighten your belt and ante up more taxes, nor their very jobs, if you can call them jobs.

That's what filled me with so much, well, outrage that I was compelled to post umpteen bazillion words about a stupid $25 fee in a town hundreds of miles away, in Minnesota, of all places.   If you're smart, you won't tick me off like that again, or I'm liable to go on and on about, say, Oregon, or worse, South Carolina.  You have been warned.

(Hat tip to Ralph Bristol, and thanks to Mudville Gazette for the Open Post.)

UPDATE:  Thanks much to Mark over at Cutting Edge of Ecstasy for granting me my first "Spewy" award:

WARNING: Do not attempt to consume liquids while reading this post.

I'm truly touched.  (Sniff)  If anyone spewed actual liquid in the process of reading this post, I'm tempted to offer to pay for any damage, just to celebrate.  Tempted, now—but not yet yielding to said temptation.

Comments

[Rob]

I have several friends that are firefighters. I think the story also missed an important detail... Mobile homes are esentially tinderboxes. Most are fully engulfed in less than 10 minutes. Even under the best of circumstances moble homes total out in a fire. Had the guy showed and and immediately started fighting the fire, the best they could have done is save the frame. He would have lost all his stuff anyway. (Not to be judgemental, but if he couldn't pay a $25 annual fee, how valuable could his "stuff" have been?)

[Obi-Wan]

My guess, for what it's worth, is that he's hoping to parlay his loss into financial gain via a civil suit or something. Our civil court system is viewed pretty much as a lottery by a large portion of the public, it seems.

[Rob]

Comments seem to be taking a dive around here. I think I'm agreeing with you too much. I'll correct that shortly... ;-)

[Obi-Wan]

Boy, are you ever wrong, Rob! You don't agree with me nearly enough. Which means that you've already corrected the problem, I think. ;o)

And all this talk about diving is so off-topic. This is not a swimming blog. What if I just banned you, huh? You'd be sorry then... ;o)

(Would, too!...Would, too!...)

Why do I have the feeling something is up?

[Phoenix]

A "Spewy Award"? ha ha.... That's good. But I thought people spewed liquid onto their monitors at funny stuff. This story isn't funny. It's pitiful.

Anyway, one thing I have to say about the Internet is the greatness of the Spew Factor. I have laughed SO hard at stuff online that I am an addict. I also have to add that I get as bummed out by the Internet and all the dreary news as I do get pleasure from it. Oh well..... fair and balanced.. The thing is - news is news. Funny stuff comes from funny people - not necessarily the harsh realities of daily life.

Did you grokk that? :) Yes, I am reading Stranger in a Strange Land and wondering why on earth I didn't read it before. I have always had a dislike for science fiction, so I am sure that's why I put Heinlein aside. Oh well, it's nice to enjoy him now.

[Rob]

Heinlein is great and Stranger in a Strange land is one of his best. However, be prepared for the mother of all straw man attacks on the Bible in all literature. But I digress... I better get back to talking about diving before Obi bans me.. 8-0

[Phoenix]

Rob,

What do you mean by 'the mother of all straw man attacks on the Bible in all literature'? Does it come in this book ? I'm not sure what I have to prepare for, though. I've read so much literature in my life that gave little credence to the Bible that I don't think I'll be moved one way or the other by another attack. Come to think of it, some of the most frightening science fiction I've read has been by Christian publishers publishing only Christian literature.

[Obi-Wan]

But I thought people spewed liquid onto their monitors at funny stuff. This story isn't funny. It's pitiful.

Not sure if that's kind of sort of a compliment, or if you're making sure I stay humble... ;o)

Did you grokk that? :)

Heh. And another Heinlein fan is born...! (Sounding fanfare)

However, be prepared for the mother of all straw man attacks on the Bible in all literature.

Heinlein's thinking on the issue of religion in general is pretty clear, but let's give Phoenix the benefit of the doubt, for the moment, that she won't fall for a strawman argument. After all, that's my job, right, Rob? ;o)

I better get back to talking about diving before Obi bans me.. 8-0

Better start toein' the ol' line, Robby boy, or I'll ban you just to see what it feels like. Four or five times. ;o)

[Rob]

Yeah, it's in "Stranger". It's one that actually made me laugh out loud. I've heard that there's an unabridged version of Stranger in a Strange Land that is an all out assault on organized religon. If so I hope it's better organized than what he left in cause it's fairly weak. I was inclined to believe he did it on purpose as part of the character development but after hearing about the over version I'm not so sure. Still and all, it's an excelent book. Especially the ending wher... ;-)

My favorite stories are ones that are unintentianally religous. There is one story about a "race" of robots who search out for their creators. It's a short story and for the life of me I can't remember the author. The gem, though, is the prequal he wrote to that short story about the last man alive. It is unusually compelling and emotive and I even used it once for a devotional I gave. Amazing piece of literature and I wish I could remember the title..

[Rob]

Hey remember, I've been banned before. Not exactly treading new ground there... :-)

[Obi-Wan]

Speaking of strawmen, Rob—

It has been my observation that most opponents of religion, organized or otherwise, are prone to making unintentional strawman arguments due to a basic unfamiliarity with their opponent, and this unfamiliarity is usually born of disrespect—after all, they think, why attempt to study and actually grok something which is so "obviously wrong" from the get-go? (I have no one in particular in mind as I say that.)

And this works both ways, too (and no, I'm not attempting to "draw you out," Rob; I'm only making an observation)—nearly all opponents of the theory of evolution also do not grok it, and for the same reasons—and not as well as they think they do based on the literature they read (most of which which isn't exactly written from an evolutionary perspective). In fact, that last one probably also applies to religion, too.

All of this is a huge reason I'm so determined to debate issues in an "honest, polite and intellectually sound" manner, and why I so appreciate you, Phoenix, and most other commenters on this blog. Referring to people who disagree with me as "morons" may give a little temporary emotional satisfaction, may reflect frustration, and may on occasion even be correct, but no one learns very much that way.

[Blog comment threads] are usually just cheerleading sessions, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing but a soothing reduction in blood pressure brought about by the narcotic high of being agreed with.--Bill Whittle

[Phoenix]

Whoa... Obi... Methinks we should make you Bloglodyte Diplomat of the Sphere. Nicely done commentary above about straw men commentary. Bravo !

You needn't give me the benefit of the doubt for falling for the straw man theory. I know what I believe and I will stick with it. But thank you for looking out for me.

I did get to the part where Mike is watching a Fosterite Ceremony for the-soon-to-become-dead and Harshaw notices it and figures he has to deprogram Mike. He didn't get very far because Mike obviously doesn't grok religion, but it was fairly clear Heinlein has little use for religion. He did manage to debunk Occam's Razor. I'm surprised he didn't bring up Pascal's Wager; but then, as Rob said, he gave short shrift to religion in that scene.....and no doubt for the very same reason Rob said - it would have amounted to a diatribe and fallen out of the plot sequence and character development. I trust there is more oratory about religion left to come ??

I think I can say at this point that Heinlein, speaking through Harshaw, hardly flouts the tenants of religion but rather just shows an impatience with it. You have to give credit to his method, though, by having to 'explain' religion to one who has no concept of it. Not that that is not what the book is about - teaching about humans to a human Martian ...... I'm too early in the book to say much more than that, but I am sure loving it. I do not get the feeling Heinlein is using the story as a platform. I do find that in Christian literature, however.

[Obi-Wan]

I do find that in Christian literature, however.

Yeah, but that's sort of the whole point of having "Christian literature," as opposed to simply literature written by someone who happens to be a Christian.

Thanks very much for the kind words. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for this blog one day to be known as a place to have a real, honest, civilized debate.

And no, I didn't really expect you to need my help in knowing what to believe. ;o)

[Obi-Wan]

Oh—and Rob,

Yeah, it's in "Stranger". It's one that actually made me laugh out loud.

Help me out, please—what "strawman" is that you're remembering?

[Phoenix]

"Yeah, but that's sort of the whole point of having "Christian literature,"

But doesn't that make you sick? That people knowingly go and buy books just to support their views? That makes me think Christians who buy these books are insecure in their beliefs. It is as if they need a dose of Christian soma to keep on with their faith. The blind leading the I-want-to-stay-blind.

I don't understand it, myself. Why would anyone take the narrow view to the exclusion of everything else? Hmmm....that might be the classic understatement query of the world.

[Rob]

Well, don't collectors buy books on their craft? Or professionals buy books on their trade? I buy alot of Christian books because alot of people have written alot of really great books. I've learned alot (and found alot I disagreed with) and I love the adventure of learning. Take Ravi Zacharias (who's come up recently). The man has a mind that facinates me. He can say in a few words things I would take paragraphs to say badly. I learn something new each time I hear his radio show. Isn't that what drives alot of people, the pursuit of knowledge? Why should Christians be any different?

[Obi-Wan]

But doesn't that make you sick? That people knowingly go and buy books just to support their views? That makes me think Christians who buy these books are insecure in their beliefs.

People do that all the time in other areas as well. Not everyone is interested in "expanding their views." We can argue about the desirability of that, but Christians are hardly the only ones who read to support what they believe.

And yes, many people, Christians included, are insecure in their beliefs, at least in some way. There are things I believe are probably true, but I'm not sure, and to that extent it would be fair to say that I'm "insecure" in that belief. That's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're ready to argue that you have nothing else to learn. ;o)

I try (not always very successfully) to maintain an attitude of knowing why I believe what I do, but being always willing to listen to an opposing view, and, if it turns out I was wrong, changing my mind. It seems to me that saying otherwise, i.e. sticking with all my beliefs the way they are now, is tantamount to claiming perfection or infallibility.

Why would anyone take the narrow view to the exclusion of everything else?

Short answer? Because he believes the narrow view is right and everything else is wrong.

And before you laugh, sometimes that's exactly the right attitude to have, say, in the sciences, particularly (sorry) mathematics. But I think you were probably thinking more along philosophical or religious lines, right?

[Phoenix]

" Because he believes the narrow view is right and everything else is wrong."

This is my point. ...to the exclusion of everything else. Yes, it does produce that complacency of infallibility in one's beliefs. I can't buy that.

I agree that everyone who has an avid interest, a devotion to a particular 'thing' is naturally going to explore it and to try to learn more about it. Silly to think otherwise. But I'm talking about the incorporeal aspects of a belief system - whether Christianity or Islam. A belief system is not a 'trade' or a 'craft'. It is a belief system. You believe it or you don't. One studies a craft, say carpentry, to become better at it, to learn more skills. Does one have to study a religious belief to become more skillful in that belief?

" I buy alot of Christian books because alot of people have written alot of really great books. I've learned alot (and found alot I disagreed with) and I love the adventure of learning." Rob, when you find things you disagree with, does this make you question your faith or the author's integrity? In the end, do you declare yourself right? And if you do declare yourself right, how do you prove it?

And to both of you, the pursuit of knowledge is what drives man, don't you think? Beyond the obvious instinctual needs, the pursuit of knowledge is what makes man more complete. That, I think, is why I find those who adhere adamantly to a narrow view to be quite foolish.

[Rob]

That, I think, is why I find those who adhere adamantly to a narrow view to be quite foolish

I find it interesting you would say that. Think about education. When you go from a Bachelors degree to a Masters degree to a Doctorate, are you increasing the breadth of your knowledge or the depth of your knowledge? You are learning more and more about less and less. You are narrowing your view to become an expert of it. Is that a foolish pursuit?

[Phoenix]

Whoa. You are increasing the breadth AND the depth of your knowledge. "Learning more about less and less." Where does this kind of thinking come from? Take your doctor analogy: Bachelor's degree; medical degree; specialized - say in brain surgery or psychotherapy. You have not lost one bit of knowledge, but you have added to that base of knowledge while increasing the breadth and depth of that knowledge. These are tangibles.

Can you apply the same analogy to the study of a belief system without belying an inherent insecurity about those beliefs?

[Rob]

Sure. God is infinite. Or more formally, he's Omniscent, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. Me as a corporeal being can never, ever grok God. (for the non-Heinlein fans out there, grok means, roughly, to "know in fullness") Best I can ever do on earth is to "pursue knowledge" of Him. Fortunately, he promises to meet me on my journey and help me to become more like Him. I must do my part though and make the journey.

I've told Obi before, in my faith I know that I know that I know that God exists. It's not even a discussion item for me anymore. I have a relationship with Him and it's not one sided. ie, it's not blind faith anymore. I have more proof that God exists than I do Obi. For all I know Obi is a smart AI blog publishing program with a bad sense of humor. ;-)

Anyway, so my goal is to increase the depth and breadth of my knowlege of God. In the process I will read what I can and glean what I can from it. That included things critical.

And the "more and more about less and less" I got from one of my Math Professors. That was his version of the progression. ie, you decide to become a scientist. Science is a very broad field so you choose Biology. Biology is very broad so you later specialize in vertabrate biology. That is broad so you end up doing your Docteral Dissertation on Prarie Dog Socialization and end up an expert in the "field" of Prarie Dogs. What do you know about Squid reproduction? A little, but no one is probably beating your doors down to write an article on that subject.

[Phoenix]

Rob,

I appreciate your faith and respect you for your dedication to it.

As far as your math professor and his triangular proposition on his version of progression.... he was too linear a thinker. He makes the mistaken claim that one loses knowledge in the pursuit of it. I'll stick with my doctor analogy because I think that is how it works. In the professor's premise, he cannot claim that the individual had 'more and more' knowledge because that individual deliberately chose to eliminate/forego some knowledge and to focus on one small aspect of it. So, the 'less and less' is invalid. You can't have 'less' of something you never had to begin with.

[Richard Ames]

I might agree with your sentiments except that the $25 fire protection "contribution" is on top of the local earned income tax, per capita tax, property tax (school and county), state income tax, state sales tax, and federal tax that the poor guy has to pay each year for government "services". You'd think authorities could have thrown some dirty hose water on his home for all that. I mean, right?

[Rob]

Ooow, a comment on the original post! I think the main point of contention is that $25 a year is a laughably small amount to pay for fire protection. I bet the firetruck that drove out to his bonfire burned more than $25 in gas to make the trip. If he honestly couldn't pay the $25 bucks for the year then probably the property tax was way beyond his means too. If he could afford to pay and just didn't, then he got what he should have expected. If he wanted to change the law then he should have made mention of this "absurdity" before. I am reluctantly forced to agree with Obi.. He blew off paying "just 'cause", lost his gamble and is now trying to build support for either legal action or community outpouring.

That said, if he were my neighbor I'd help him out. This is America, afterall. That's just what we do.

[miriam's ideas]

The problems with not putting out his fire Innocent people could be hurt, like children and dogs; His neighbors' houses could burn down; trees have also been know to burn. Putting out fires is for the common good. That's why fire departments exist, both volunteer and professional.