FFPCogs

Hey all Greetings from sunny Camp Leatherneck Afghanistan where I'm about 2 months in on a one year FF contract. Now to the topic at hand. I share many of the views that have been expressed here at least in part. Without fail ANY officer should have to meet a minimum series of requirements to serve in any given position whether they are appointed or elected. My dept requires that you pass an in house test to become eligible to run for office (yes we elect our officers). While this may not seem enough it is better than some other options that I have seen. For me personally I'm a fan of the follwing three step process for officers (regardless of status) be they from a combo dept or not. 1.time served 2.certification/training 3.testing I do believe that for volunteers electing officers is an acceptable method so long as the criteria above are met. That being said I am without reservation opposed to differing standards within a dept for career and volunteer personnel at any rank. Also I cannot fathom career only and volunteer only officers as this in effect creates two departments in one and only adds to divisiveness and friction. As much as some may take exception to the following, but based on my experiences I think that the officer ranks within a combo department should be filled by volunteer personnel...but again only after the minimums above are met. (If any career people here are offended by my views you are fully within your rights to feel that way, but remember my views are based on my experiences). Now I fully realize that in many cases career personnel do recieve more training in terms of hours than volunteers, but it is also not that uncommon to find volunteers who have as much if not more experience with actual calls than their career counterparts. As I've said many times (much to chagrin of some) a paycheck does not in and of itself guarantee anything other than a career FF recieves a paycheck. I have been involved with a couple of VFDs that run and work more than many smaller or even mid sized (200+) all career depts. What is of most importance is that the people put into officers positions are qualified to be there regardless of status, but alas this is not always the case on either side of the fire service coin. It is a monumental task to try to change the "norm" of any department, but as with most anything worthwile the time and effort expended will be well worth it if in the end we produce the highest quality officers our department's are capable of producing because by doing so we all benefit. Cogs Peter Cogliano Firefighter Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV Camp Leatherneck Afghanistan

RIP Capt. My condolences to the family and the members of the RFD Cogs

Excellent post and a good perspective in terms of where we stand today. Carte blance? Unfortunately I highly doubt it, at least for the FD side. The emergency services and especially the fire service rank far below education and as a parent I can say in part I agree with that..after all the education of my kids is of prime importance to me, for that is their future. We generally fall far short of the Police as well maybe in part because the PD is usually a far more visible presence in the community and crime is viewed as a larger "threat" than fire to the average person. That being said we in the fire service face another hurdle and one that I don't, I can't advocate going around...that being the fact that we always do as much as we can with as little as we can. We are here to save lives and property and if we are hamstrung financially in doing so we still do it to the best of our ability (in general) because that is why we are here...and truth be told I hold firm to the conviction that this is our duty, as do most FFs I think. This is our Achilles heel in a sense though because the public and the bean counters know this as well...they call = we come and do the job regardless, so there is little "pressure" to give us carte blance or even at times it seems, simply enough. I can't and won't condone providing less than the utmost service to our communities under whatever financial strains we may face, because to do so would be the antithesis of what it means to be a firefighter, at least to me. Maybe the answer lies in better PR and public education since most people suffer from the "it can never happen to me" syndrome and therefore don't think they need to make the investment in us. Just a thought Cogs ____________ Peter Cogliano FF Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV Kandahar, Afghanistan

D'oh

I honestly never post anything with the intention of offending others, but truth be told if I do I don't lose any sleep over it. Arrogant? Yeah maybe, but I readily stand behind whatever I post and just believe that others should do the same as a matter of principle. As I see it the comments made here belong to those that post them and we are all free to express those views. But we should also be prepared to defend those opinions when we make them, including our opinions of each other, or we shouldn't post them in the first place. As adults we should take responsibility for our comments, after all we do own them. Having said that as expected I'm not a big fan of anonymous judgement from others, good or bad. I definitely agree that those who rate others should have to make themselves known when doing so and thus stand behind their judgements. Cogs ___________ Peter Cogliano FF/T.O. Belltown Fire Dept Stamford, CT

Here, here... couldn't agree more

Professionalism has far more to do with attitude than it does with paychecks.

Happy 125th Anniversary SFRD and thanks to all who have served our City so well over the years and to those who do so now. Stay Safe Cogs

"The Departed" definitely fits the category, but for me I think I'll have to go with "The French Connection" as well. There have been alot of good cop moives over the years, and quite a few dogs as well....as the title says " The Bad Lieutenant" comes to mind. But in all reality while cop movies are good, I have always found mob movies to be more ...entertaining, (but hey I am a piaisan after all.... ). And with that I must say that of them all...and there are quite a few great ones..."The Godfather" holds the number one spot hands down. Cogs

I too must congratulate you on your continued efforts Geppetto...thanks Below is my response from another site to a posters comments titled "so much for cooperation", about these latest developments as reported above by the Advocate. As usual it fits just as well here...plus I'm just too damn lazy to type it again... : The entire situation is a long time in the making and right or wrong I can tell you that the levels of animosity and mistrust run high here. There are those who seek an equitable and more importantly a productive resolution, but old feelings and past actions are not easily overcome. Nor are the agendas which have plagued this issue from the outset. There is more than enough speculation and innuendo floating around here as to why Springdale's Chief has chosen this course of action, so I will refrain from adding mine. But I will say that at least to him there is validity in it, and judgement should be reserved until his entire plan and it's justification(s) are known. To be quite frank, IMHO our local newspaper has had difficulty in reporting ANY news about anything accurately, so any information gleaned from it should be tempered with a bit of skepticism. The battle lines are pretty firmly drawn here, with each "side" convinced of the validity of their view. This is to be expected, for as I said this has been brewing in Stamford for years. Ideas, plans, and theories to resolve this have been suggested by many people involved in this mess. Most have met with derision, scorn or outright dismissal, more often than not because they don't support any particular agenda at play here. The Task Force set up by the Mayor is charged with moving past those agendas to find that which will best serve the city as a whole. It may be, however doubtful to many, that Chief Fahan's plan is a step in that direction, then again it may not. Speaking only for myself I too believe that we should be moving towards a unified system, although not one in which volunteers are subordinated, or relegated to a support role. I do find the notion of the VFDs being "the farm team" or "feeder" for SFRD to be counterproductive and ultimately detrimental to the long term viability of volunteer firefighting in this city. A far better approach, at least to me, would be to try to emulate those combination systems that have proven successful utilzing both career and volunteer personnel equally, based on standardized performance guidelines. Everyone who knows me knows I regularly cite MD and VA as examples of that, and I hold firm to that belief. Irrespective of my opinions or anyone elses, it is a sure thing that the situation MUST be resolved. How that is best accomplished may still be open to debate, but what should not be is realization that only through compromise will we assure that the public's best interest is served. Peter Cogliano Firefighter/ T.O. Belltown Fire Dept Stamford, CT

As I stated in another forum: Maybe this is just what is needed, the non partisan objective view of a well respected native son not entrenched in either "side" of the issue. Let's face it, whether anyone wants to admit it or not the truth is agendas, animosity, distrust and disrespect have run rampant through this whole mess from the beginning and have up to this point prevented any real steps towards a resolution. I would hope that we would all agree that a new direction is long overdue. That being the case, this task force offers the possibility of that new direction and should be afforded the opportunity to develop one with our support. As for the make up of the task force overall, I think the choices made are good ones. I would hope that none of the representatives come into this with a preset agenda, but rather look objectively at all options that have a reasonable chance of success. Should they bring with them the concerns and obligations from each quarter? Of course they should, for they are considerations which must be addressed, but they cannot be bound by them if there is to be any kind of real solution. As with any such endeavor it is a sure thing that not everyone will be satisfied by the composition of this task force. I would venture to say that it's a safe bet that whatever the ulitmate plan there will be those who find fault with that as well, maybe even myself among them. But the choices have been made by the Mayor and each "side" is represented. Whether you agree with those choices or not, a start at resolving the mess within that framework has been made. Enough of recrimination and agendas. Let them do their work in charting the future and let us do ours by making it happen. Stay Safe Cogs Peter Cogliano Belltown FD Stamford, CT

Has anyone read this letter yet? Well I for one couldn't agree more with what this REAL American has to say to our President. Make sure to follow the link in the article linked below and read the whole letter http://www.kitv.com/politics/2233810...il.html?hpt=T2

Great post Goose.

Great but it is not only about giving up our strength, it is also about having the will and resolve to use that strength...sometimes pre-emptively and unilaterally...to ensure our national security and protect our vital interests. Talk is cheap and reliance on "international" action to secure OUR safety is a pipe dream. As for China, N. Korea is nothing but a poker chip used by them in their dealings with us, in much the same way we use Taiwan in our dealing with the PR of China. Is nice? Is it "fair"? Hardly, but it is part and parcel of international politics It is not the leaderships per se that have been weakened, but the support of the people is waning for both. The regimes of N. Korea and Iran are both more isolated then they were 8 years ago. N. Korea in particular has lost a number of trading partners including Russia, Pakistan, Japan and the EU. Not only that but arms shipment out of the country have come under increased scrutiny and in at least one case never reached their destination at all.

Thank you and to you and yours.

Ah well I'm too tired to write it.

I guess you are unable to read what I've been saying because your too busy trying to defend your point of view, so I'll repeat it for you. History has shown that diplomacy and negotiation only work when there is sufficient force and a willingness to use that force to achieve a peaceful resolution. Weakness in either aspect sends the message that we will talk but not act. This is as true now as it has been for the last 5000 years of recorded human civilization. Knowing our shared history and basing your approach to crisis on it IS considering the past, not living in it...it is called being prudent and learning from past mistakes. That is indeed an interesting tid bit, number 7 huh? Out of how many nations is that? The fact is Americans have known a higher standard of living overall for a longer period of time than any other nation in history. And considering the myriad of problems we face #7 is still far better than most.

I was going to go into a long dissertation on the history that brought us to the world we live in today, but what would be the point. It really just boils down to to the fact that the actions taken in years past, be they right or be they wrong in your estimation, are what has allowed you and every other American to live free and maintain the highest standard of living the world has ever known. What you call "soulless aggression" is unfortunately and ulitimately how the world works, to believe otherwise is to live in a bubble, and to be quite frank is downright dangerous. History is also full of the hubris of those who fell victim to more powerful aggressors because the expense of defense was considered too high. Ultimately they had neither bread nor the weapons to get it Yes indeed history has seen many civilizations come and go, for nothing lasts forever. America's decline has far less to do with "insatiable militaristic adventures" then it does with the cancers that rot us from within, but that is another topic far too extensive and contentious to go into now here.

No I feel we should maintain and use our military strength to safeguard American lives. Threats and posturing mean nothing. Diplomacy is always preferable to the spilling of blood, any blood, but no man, group or country can negotiate from a position of weakness. To do so invites further bellicose and aggressive action on the part of our adversaries. As I have repeatedly pointed out the easy way now bring much larger problems in the future. This is the lesson of our history you seem so ready to dismiss. We needn't fear isolation. America is the center of the world economy and as such the world needs us far more than we need them. If as you say we are becoming isolated where is this evident? Surely not in the economic and trade arenas. What nation has called for sanctions against us, or reduced trade? None. If it's lack of willing allies you fear, don't. We fight the free worlds battles as we have since the Cold War because we are the only nation capable of doing so. So if it means we risk becoming isolated for defending American lives and interests around the world, or freeing those who live under the yolk of tyranny, then so be it. For if we don't do it who will? Ah yes we've heard this before. People around the world have espoused this view for years to justify appeasement, with disasterous results. All I can say is this oft repeated opinion can only be answered by another oft repeated quote: "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it"

These regimes became far more isolated under the Bush adminstration. And let's not forget that their nuclear ambitions began in earnest under a Democratic administration that did nothing to thwart them. IMHO what is truly laughable if it weren't so serious is to think that anything other than the threat and actual use of force at times will influence these powers. They cannot be reasoned with or bought off any more than Hitler could.

I'm sure it is as well, but sentiment alone will not suffice. Actions speak louder than words. Now is the time for the eagle not the dove.

And that is exactly the point. We have retained our primacy on the world stage. For all the talk of the "damage" done by GW Bush in fact America is still the lone superpower that the rest of the world looks to for guidance and relies on in times of crisis. This standing was earned by generations of Americans who gave all to ensure our security and maintain our pre-eminient position in the global political arena. To believe that history does not repeat itself is to ask for trouble. Even in recent hisstory we have glaring examples of what weakness and appeasement offer. In the 1930's in the midst of the Great Depression America chose isolationism as Europe appeased Hitler and then erupted in war and Asia suffered under the relentless spread of the Japanese. We all know where that led. 470,000 dead Americans and 50 million dead worldwide all because tyrants percieved weakness from America and the European democracies. Flash forward to the late 1970s and the Carter administration. Our old nemesis Soviet Russia began an unprecedented military build up that undid much of what had been gained by Truman, Kennedy and even Johnson, who stood his ground in Vietnam which we now know in hindsight ultimately stopped the spread of communism in Asia. Roosevelt knew we had to enter WW2 and we did albeit probably too late. Had we acted sooner against tyranny, they may never have been such a terrible catastrophe Truman stood up to the Russians and Chinese in Korea...making America safer Kennedy stood up to the Soviets over nuclear missles in Cuba...making America safer Johnson stood up to communism is Asia...making America and our Asian allies safer Nixon threatened nuclear war during the Yom Kippur war keeping the Russians out of the Middle East...thus saving Israel and ultimayely making America safer Reagan refused to bow to increasing pressure and refused to yield to the "no nukes" crowd..as we now know his was the right choice which ended the Cold War making America safer Do you see the trend. Talk is fine but it must be tempered by an unwaivering willingness to use force when necessary...even at the risk of becoming isolated. The track record of the Democratic Party since Johnson has been one of talking when punching is in order, making America LESS safe in the world. It has fallen to the Republican administrations to set right the damage done by the Democrats peace through weakness one big happy family approach.

Yes I do On this we can definitely agree

Yes actually I would, inasmuch as we alone can influence the situation without direct military action. Both regimes have faced a loss of access to technology vital to increasing their nuclear capabilities, as well as an upsurge in anti government resisitance from their populace..especially Iran..remember their latest "election". The cracks are forming. Both regimes have been isolated on the world stage, and in the case of N. Korea this stance worked towards bankrupting a teetering regime while containing them on the pennisula. As for Al Qeada and such, well we haven't been attacked at home since 9/11 have we? We have taken the fight to them and kept it off our shores. Pulling out of Iraq now may yet prove to be a huge mistake as their instability will invite Iran to attempt to influence affairs due to Iraq's large Shi'ite population. Afghanistan is now the hot spot and here the overly long drawn out process to increase troop strength, along with the Iraq pullot are seen as signs of indecision or lack of committment that no President of the United States should portray. This only emboldens our current and any potential future enemies to continue the fight (or begin one) in the belief that we lack the resolve to finish it. The security of this nation does not lie solely on our shores, but on those of distant lands as well. Our enemies must never again think they can inflict a horrific tragedy like 9/11 without an immediate, resolute and overwhelming response. During my employment in Iraq there was one sentiment that was repeatedly expressed by the troops I had the honor of working for. Even though the war was (is) unpopular, almost to a man they felt it was better to shed their blood in Iraq or Afghan or where ever than to have even one drop of American blood be shed at home again. So yes as unpopular as it may be, I do believe that overall the "hard line stance" of the last 8 years was a success.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as are we all. I have to say though that on the above point I disagree strongly. A hard line resolute determined stance is exactly what is needed now. If history has taught us anything it is that appeasement doesn't work. Our advesaries are not bound by our moral or constitutional constraints. They will not be bought off either. The more we give the more they will seek to take. Only through strength and a willingness to use that strength can we assure peace and the future security of this nation. Freedom is not now nor has it ever been free. Believing that radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, or maniacal tyrants such as Ahmadenijad or Kim il Sung will yeild to talk without the force to back it up is a dangerous fantasy that will cost far more in blood down the road than that which may be spilled now.