Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Bernard in Brisbane, Australia on October 3, 2011:

While I can see where Alexander was coming from with the tag line, I also thought it was a bit odd. Maybe that's because I don't believe in exterminating wildlife because it annoys or irritates us? :-)

My personal inclination for a tagline would have been more along the lines of "...but the 'usual' way involves missing eyebrows and visits to the burn unit."

Posted by Anne, Calif. on October 4, 2011:

"but you can also say the fire chief is an officious, rule-laden bureaucrat"

Say what???? someone ignites a fireball that's visible for hundreds of feet and from the local country club and the FIRE CHIEF is an officious, rule-laden bureaucrat? 3 years ago we had a fire that burned 50 sq miles of area, 30 houses, 100 outbuildings (including one of my sheds) - from someone who was target shooting in dry conditions. The fire chief should have been all over this guy about this one. Even in rainy season, our burn piles aren't allowed to put up flames as high as described here, and they're supposed to be no more than 4 feet in diameter (although most of them do go bigger). This guy could have caused a serious problem. The fire chief is not the one to blame here. This is why we have laws and taxes to pay the fire dept - to keep jerks like this guy from burning us out of our houses.

---

No one said the fire chief is "the one to blame." I did say that pointing out the fact that the fire chief is a "bureaucrat" is a legitimate point of view. We're not talking tinder-dry Arizona or Texas here, we're talking about coastal Washington, almost to the Canadian border. Please read all of this page to look at the big picture -- including "the guy in the story is a jerk"! -rc

Posted by Luis Eduardo from Mexico on October 4, 2011:

To be honest, I am against the tagline, one should complain about a bureaucracy when the process is only formalism without reason or only a obstacle. In this case we're talking about doing things in a more secure way, to do an impulsive act of burning a hive can go wrong in many ways, and saying "well, but nothing wrong happened now" is not really comforting here.

---

As has been pointed out already, it's typical to see stories like this in TRUE where things went wrong: the fireball hurt someone, or burned down a house. It didn't this time. So of course the point of view of the tagline is different! -rc

Posted by Anne, California on October 4, 2011:

Calling the firefighter a bureaucrat is fine; saying you could call him a officious, rule-laden bureaucrat is what I objected to. Which wasn't in the original story but was in the fuller explanation above.

And yes, I read the complete story and stand by my comment that the guy was a jerk -- burning out bees is a bad idea for very many reasons, including fire danger and including punishing a hive for one bee sting and including bees are getting scarcer and many other reasons. Alexander is free to have his view of the story. Readers such as me are free to disagree. Perhaps Alexander may reconsider his viewpoint after reading some of the comments. Perhaps not.

Posted by Damon Z, California on October 4, 2011:

I liked the tagline. My perspective on life is informed by a anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophy. The fire chief is, of course, a bureaucrat. As such, his "perspective" is likely informed by a life spent adhering to rules, and getting paid to make sure others do the same.

Good story, good tag, and plenty of shenanigans to spare. :)

Posted by Morgan, Colorado on October 4, 2011:

I like home grown pyrotechnics as much as the next guy, but I don't think you are treating the Fire Chief fairly. His only actions referred to in the story are to say no harm done, and suggest a slightly safer alternative. He really doesn't sound that "officious" to me.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on October 4, 2011:

Still not getting the "problem," here. A bureaucrat (fire chief, who IS a bureaucrat, regardless what one may think of the term) said, "No damage." A fireball created no damage? "NO one was hurt?" I mean, I realize bees aren't people, but a "bunch of dead bees" sounds like some "one" got hurt. Seems to me the fire chief was acting a bit officious. A very small bit; it was just a statement, after all. I don't think the tagline was all that profound, either, but you try to churn these out week after week. Still, it didn't incite offense to me, either. Geez, they're not going to be all gems.

---

While I have to (reluctantly!) agree, I do still think it works in the sense of being unconventional and unexpected, aka "contrarian". It wasn't a guffaw, but then, it wasn't meant to be. -rc

Posted by Trisha in Texas on October 5, 2011:

After the drought induced wildfires we've had here for months destroying more than a thousand homes, I know that my reaction is a little skewed, but I think I would have gone with a tag line a little more anti stupid fire starting and sympathetic to the bees. Although having had a nest of "aggressive" bees in my backyard a few years back I have to agree that they can be pests. Just ask the kid who was mowing my lawn when the bees decided the kid was dangerous. We had to take him to the ER for multiple bee stings from the top of his head all the way down to his ankles (the nest was in a dead tree stump that had been sawed off level with the ground).

Posted by Mark, Shelton, Wa on October 5, 2011:

I am picturing another bureaucrat demanding he restore the bees to their previous condition (lack of common sense is also a characteristic of some bureaucrats, see your PC stories :-))

Posted by Christian, Colorado on October 7, 2011:

I reacted poorly to the tagline when I read it, but I'll allow that it's probably my personal bias showing. This past summer, my 89-year-old grandmother had to fight a grass fire with a garden hose after her anti-government neighbors decided fire bans didn't apply to them -- and the sentiment of the tagline is something they would applaud.