“Eliminate the fire dept.?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 16 - 22, 2011, 21.

RED UNIFORMS?

It’s easy to conjure images of firefighters from movies, heroic efforts to put out a fire, save lives and property. The horrific memories of 9/11 include those of courageous firefighters that lost lives while saving others, selflessly doing what they do best. And those cute Dalmatians: who can resist them around the fire station?

What about our very own men in uniform? Is their efforts worth close to $60 million annually? Can’t we do without them altogether? Why not lose a few houses a year, let them burn to the ground? How much are firefighters worth? At least one politician made her career based on her support for these men in uniform. No politician dares cross their voting power, and therefore begs for their endorsement. The amicable Richard Brown was finally installed as the Fire Chief after Mayor Bach finally decided to keep Steve Cox in his administration (still a chief)—both good choices.

A new fire truck costs about $400,000 and a “ladder” close to $800,000 (we have six of those). Our CSFD buys refurbished trucks that cost less than half of new ones. It also plans to open two new stations without staff increases. Doing more with less is what they are thinking, especially with a business-minded mayor that expects them to be efficient, while remaining “business friendly.”

Full disclosure: when I had historic-preservation issues with Il Postino’s ceiling (now Springs Orleans), it was the fire chief who came to my “rescue” as Regional Building inspectors gave me a hard time. It was his letter of support that preserved the historical ceiling of a building with sprinklers two blocks away from a fire station. Mayor Bach: they are business friendly!

So, have I come to praise the CSFD rather than bury it? Perhaps praise isn’t the right term. It’s about realizing what they do. In fact, out of around 35,000 annual 911 calls to which they respond, only around 700 relate to fires. So, it should be renamed the Colorado Springs Emergency Department. Just as with my recommendation to change Thanksgiving to Thanks-eating, I doubt this one will happen. So, what kinds of calls are these?

As “first responders,” firefighters deal with more medical issues than anything else. This is not surprising when over a third of the local population lacks health insurance and is frightened to go to emergency rooms or call an ambulance. If that’s the case, why send a huge fire truck rather than a CSFD ambulance? Isn’t this wasteful? Why not just call the private ambulance service?

Unlike a fully–equipped ambulance, which arrives as well and which for a fee transports patients to hospitals, fire trucks have additional equipment that may be needed. The reason for this perceived waste is twofold: first to ensure extreme needs—emergency responses plan for the worst scenario and hope for the best (a cat stuck in a tree), and second to provide redundancies, which are required for safety (think of your gas needle and the odometer which can be zeroed when fueling). Those enormous trucks contain all that can be used if and when something goes really wrong: heart-attack of an obese patient stuck under a bed in a room whose door is too small to walk through.

If the CSFD dealt only with emergencies that are fire-related, the question would be: isn’t preventive work more important than actual firefighting? If yes, why are there only 15 inspectors out of a workforce of 465? One answer has been to certify another 97 captains and lieutenants to do inspections as well. In fact, in residential calls, the team also checks for fire/smoke-alarms and when they are missing, installs them free of charge. 

If all buildings were sprinkled, wouldn’t the need for CSFD be diminished? On one level, the answer is yes. On another, there is a difference between commercial buildings (required to have sprinklers) and residential (which are not), as well as between new construction (which are required) and old ones (which are grand-fathered without). With this in mind, we may have to wait for old building to be replaced over time before fires would claim no lives. Incidentally, the 700 fires in 2010 claimed 3 lives and $12 million in damage, while $270 million were saved.

Last year 23 new fire-fighters were hired from a pool of 1,757 applicants. What’s the attraction? Starting salary is around $41,000 (teachers start at $32,000). Average work-week is 56 hours (with day on, day off schedule). Union membership is optional (more than half are members), even in this conservative, anti-union city. So, is it the movies, accolades, adrenaline rush?

The best answer I heard is the sense of camaraderie, team-work, and collaboration that makes it all worth it. Sounds socialist, especially with red as the color of choice? Whatever their ideology, they do save lives!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who thankfully only dealt with fire inspectors over the years. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“A couple ideas about bases in foreign countries,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 9 - 15, 2011, 21

MILITARY COSTUMER SERVICE

When Republican presidential candidates agree with a fellow candidate, you can bet that he has no chance of winning the nomination. That’s where Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) finds himself, especially with some comments he makes about foreign military bases. If only 10% of what he says makes sense, it’s a much higher percentage compared to other politicians’ statements.

According to Dr. Paul, in his CBS’s “Face the Nation” interview, “This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases…is an old fashioned idea…It makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt - we can't afford it any longer." The libertarian republican can’t get even his own party to agree to this idea that troops should be withdrawn from around the globe.

Perhaps there is an ideological obstacle here: the meaning of patriotism. It used to be the slogan “Support Our Troops” with yellow ribbons. As William Deresiewicz tells us, it’s now the “cult of the uniform.” We respect soldiers in uniform for risking their lives within the only institution in America that hasn’t turned into a political football.

Focusing on soldiers without considering the wars themselves, whether they are just or unjust, affordable or not, yield our intended results, is like asking if wine is sacred. Of course the troops deserve respect and wine as a sacrament is sacred, but does this resolve the tough questions about involvement in foreign wars (or drunk driving)?

President Obama apparently ignores his own declarations about troop reduction overseas. While our presence in Iraq will “end” by 2012, he has announced establishing a new base in Darwin, Australia. Will we close all our bases in Iraq? What about support teams around other Arab nations?

The latest reports suggest we are spending about $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. A month’s worth of expenditure, just to put things in perspective, amounts to the entire state of Colorado’s annual budget. Is this buying us any goodwill there? Or in Pakistan? Reports suggest that opium is at its lowest street price in Los Angeles. Forget about the Taliban; we can’t even stop the drug trade. Why do we believe that we can succeed where the Russians failed?

Since Republicans and Democrats alike are not interested in making any cuts to the military budget, and since the general public would rather increase defense budget than welfare benefits, perhaps we should rethink Dr. Paul’s suggestion in one of two ways.

The first is audacious and will go nowhere: for every base we have in a foreign country—presumably with that country’s consent—we should have a foreign military base in the US. This reciprocity would bring a financial bonanza with it, since those foreign bases on American soil would be paid for by the country of origin, the way we pay for our bases abroad. 

The second, and perhaps more reasonable, idea is to retain our bases abroad but have them paid for by the hosting country. Theoretically, Americans are on German or South Korean soil in order to protect the Germans or South Koreans, respectively. Why not pay for your own protection? These are wealthy countries that can afford to pay our bills to protect them against potential enemies. In fact, this is not an outlandish idea.

When Papa Bush declared war on Iraq, “Desert Storm”, in 1991, he gained the support of many allies around the globe. Thinking like a rich man who never likes to spend his own money when dining with others, he asked and received financial support from the 34 coalition partners, minimizing American financial exposure.

Some sources claim that the war cost over $60 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and $16 billion by Germany and Japan (which sent no combat forces due to their constitutions). Why didn’t his son do the same? Can Obama do the same in Afghanistan?

Once we get over the false dichotomy of being for or against military spending in general and become more responsible citizens, we don’t need to turn to Ron Paul for advice. His libertarian ideals make sense in a world of responsible individuals that need no government, or responsible nations that need no international forces. When these ideals are pragmatically applied, we can ask a simple question: who is the beneficiary of American defense spending?

Let the beneficiaries pay! And while we are at it, let them also pay veterans for PTSD, retrain them for integration into civilian life, and ensure that whatever physical or mental ailment they suffer can be treated well enough to maintain their dignity and honor.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who pays for his own meals. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com