A date which will live in infamy

Seventy five years ago today our nation was dragged into World War II by the Japanese navy's brutal surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. We were so intent on staying out of the war that getting bloodied and having our navy decimated was what it took for us to get in the fight. I can't help but wonder how things might have turned out if the Japanese pressed their advantage. It's comforting to think that everything would have turned out the same, but the more likely outcome would include brutal occupation in territory seized by the Japanese and fierce fighting on both sides. What do you think?

Trump Tower on a hill

On January 9, 1961 before leaving the Massachusetts Legislature to assume the presidency John F. Kennedy gave his final speech to that body. In it he reminded his listeners of Massachusetts's Bay Colony founder John Winthrop's admonition to the his shipmates on the flagship Arbella .
"We must always consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us."

I can't help but consider that statement in light of current events. Additionally, I cannot help but wonder what Donald J. Trump considers his responsibilities to be to his fellow Americans and how the high court of history will judge not only him, but all of us for his assent to the most powerful office on earth.

In that same speech Kennedy said, "For of those to whom much is given, much is required." He offered a yardstick to measure success in "the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier" by answering four questions:

"First, were we truly men of courage—with the courage to stand up to one's enemies—and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates—the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?

Secondly, were we truly men of judgment—with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past—of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others—with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?

Third, were we truly men of integrity—men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them—men who believed in us—men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?

Finally, were we truly men of dedication—with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest."

Courage—judgment—integrity—dedication if these are the litmus tests for the Trump administration, so far it doesn't look good.

Arming Texas First Responders

Here are my comments in April 2015 to the Texas Senate sub-committee regarding SB 1684 (a bill to allow first responders to carry concealed weapons on duty).

 

Good morning, I rise in opposition to SB 1684. I am a Captain with twenty years experience in the fire service. I am also a former two term president of the Houston Professional Firefighters Association. I say that only so that you have some sense of my professional background. I am testifying as an individual and I’m here at my own personal expense on behalf of, I believe, the best interest of firefighters across the state of Texas.

You should also know that I am a native Texan, a strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, a gun owner and a concealed handgun license holder. That being said I am opposed to SB 1684 for numerous reasons. 

I will briefly cover some of my greatest concerns, but I am prepared to provide answers and detailed explanations to any questions you may have today. Additionally, I will be leaving my contact information with you should a question arise later.

First, I would like to remind you that firefighters have better and more immediate access to law enforcement officials than the general public. That access has been improved over the last decade after the  9-11 Commission Report identified communications deficicies between police and firefighters, referred to as interoperability, as a priority.  

Next, this legislation ignores the numerous non-lethal options available to address the rare but admittedly growing number of violent attacks on first responders. Those options include (but are not limited to): changes in dispatch protocols for better collection and dissemination of information collected by call takers, mandatory descalation training, department issued body armor or even stun guns.

The additional training prescribed in this legislation doesn't come close to the tremendous amount of frequent, high fidelity training that our brothers and sisters in law enforcement receive. Despite all of that high quality training, mistakes are made by police agencies more often than they would like.

Finally, armed first responders present significant security concerns for the organizations to which they belong. It is impossible to carry a handgun while wearing the firefighter's personal protective ensemble. Therefore, a means to secure weapons on our emergency apparatus and in the station would be necessary thereby placing financial and legal liability burdens on the city.

I have a duty to get my firefighters safely through the day and I took an oath to protect the citizens of my city. I am opposed to SB 1684 because it threatens both of those obligations.

Thanks for your consideration. 

Is rapid communication a "freedom multilper?"

It has been a year since my last post. Obviously I haven’t been silent for a year. The proliferation of social media, journaling apps, text messaging and other electronic media have made it possible to communicate and document at nearly the speed of thought thereby making it difficult to slow down for the likes of written communication and blogs. That fact is indicative of one of the most tremendous improvements in human history. The common man can etch his story on the wall of a cave for anyone in the world to see and almost everyone can see it for the first time ever. In my opinion the ability to document at the rate and volume we enjoy today should be a “freedom multiplier.” From the stand point of a democratic people, when everyone can hear and be heard, the net result should be the most free world in human history.

Is it?

The Tao of Iceman -Part 2

The real conflict in the movie Top Gun never gets explored. My point requires a bit of set up. So here goes (spoiler alert if you are decades behind on you movie watching):

Pete "Maverick" Mitchell and Tom "Iceman" Kazanski are neck and neck in their quest for the coveted Top Gun trophy. Ice and Slider (his RIO) have a chance to pull ahead in the standings when they are assigned to fly a (training) mission with Maverick and Goose. Although Ice has the lead position, he cannot get the shot on the opposing force aircraft. He has to break off to let Maverick take the shot. In his frustration he cuts across Maverick's flight path causing the F-14's engine to flame out putting Maverick and Goose in a flat spin. They have no choice but to eject and abandon the aircraft. Because they are in a flat spin the canopy does not clear the aircraft and Goose is thrown into it breaking his neck. The fatality and crash result in and investigation and Maverick's aggressive flying style is under the microscope. Eventually he is cleared to fly, but must exorcise the demons of doubt and guilt. In the end he gets his confidence back, the girl and shoots down some Ruskies to boot. Maverick decides to become a Top Gun instructor. All is well that ends well.

The real conflict (and dare I say it... a better movie) might have been to examine how Iceman, who flew by the book and never made mistakes, let his ego get in the way of his philosophy as a pilot and a warrior. What lessons can we learn from his failure to stick to his core beliefs?

The Tao of the Iceman -Why isn't doing it right cool?
Part One

First, if you have not seen the movie Top Gun stop right here, rent it, watch it and start reading again here-> As you will no doubt recall, the 1986 blockbuster Top Gun starred Tom Cruise as a hot shot fighter pilot with a dangerous streak running through him. The audience learned that all naval aviators have call signs for names and Cruise's character is know as Maverick because, well... he is a maverick. Maverick's flying partner or "rear seat" (his Radar Intercept Officer or RIO in naval parlance) and best friend is called Goose.

By luck or fate Maverick and Goose are sent to the Navy's Fighter Weapon School, or as the pilots who attend call it Top Gun. There they meet their classmates who are the best of the best among Navy and Marine pilots. On the first day of class Mav wonders aloud who the best is. Fortunately for him and the audience Goose knows, "You wanted to know who the best is? That's him. Iceman. He flys ice cold. No mistakes. Wears you down. You get bored, do something stupid and he's got you."

A story is not a story without conflict thus, Maverick becomes a rival to top student Lieutenant Tom "Iceman" Kasansky (Val Kilmer)—who considers Maverick dangerous. It is an opinion Maverick crystallizes on his maiden flight at Top Gun by engaging a target below the hard deck and buzzing the tower at supersonic speed violating two of the school's safety rules. He and Goose are called in to the Commander's office for a talking to from 'the old man'.

Viper: Top Gun rules of engagement are written for your safety and for that of your team. They are not flexible, nor am I. Either obey them or you are history. Is that clear?

Iceman states his concerns a bit more pointedly: You're everyone's problem. That's because every time you go up in the air, you're unsafe. I don't like you because you're dangerous. Maverick, it's not your flying it's your attitude. The enemy is dangerous, but you're worse. You are dangerous and foolish.

So here is the question I'd like to explore. Why isn't Tom Kadansky the hero in this story? Why do we root for the Mavericks of the world instead of the Icemen?

A New Hope

Welcome to my new blog. Over the course of nearly fourteen years as editor and president of the Houston Professional Firefighters Association I wrote an article for the monthly magazine. I won't be doing that anymore, but writing regularly is a hard habit to break so I decided to write here instead. I imagine it will help me with the transition. Additionally, I can now tackle topics that I could not as a representative of Houston firefighters. The digital format and the lack of a deadline work a whole lot better for me too.

Question for the reader: What is the relevance of the title of this post? Is it:

1. Star Trek and I'm a nerd for making the reference
2. Star Wars and I'm still a nerd for making the reference 
3. You have not a clue as to what that means
4. Both 1 and 3
5. Both 2 and 3