Posted on 03/04/2005 7:16:03 AM PST by murphE
| New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com |
| Fireman hurt in leap may sue
Attorney Michael Block said the city's failure to provide safety ropes for his client, Firefighter Eugene Stolowski, caused the 33-year-old dad to be grievously injured in the Jan. 23 blaze. Stolowski - whose wife, Brigid, is due to give birth to twin girls - suffered a serious spinal cord injury when he and five other firefighters leaped from a burning building in Tremont. Two of those who jumped, Lts. Curtis Meyran and John Bellew, were killed. For years, the FDNY provided its firefighters with personal safety ropes - a practice the agency ended around 2000 amid complaints the ropes were too heavy. Stolowski spent a month in the hospital, where he underwent successful emergency surgery to reattach his spine to his skull. He is now at the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in West Orange, N.J., where doctors have said he has about a 30% chance of walking again. Since the blaze, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta has said the FDNY will provide safety ropes for all firefighters. David Saltonstall |
Now I have heard that the real reason they changed the requirement of carrying the rope was that they needed to reduce the amount of the weight of the equipment in order for more woman to be able to pass the physical tests one must take to become a NYC fire "man". What do you think?
This is pretty weird. First, the "Fireman's Rule" usually bars a tort claim by first responders because they're paid to assume the risks of injury. Additionally, I would think that worker's compensation would be the fireman's only remedy, as he was injured on the job.
Based on my observations of similar politically-correct BS in the US Navy, I'd bet you're 100% correct.
I wouldn't doubt it.. Equal rights and all. While we are on this subject can someone please tell me why we have female commentators in football and now in Nascar?
This drives me nuts even though I did like during the daytona 500 when michael waltrips car blew up and the female commentator asked hi what broke, he said "I don't know but it must have been something important" classic.
To be completely politically incorrect, (and I am a woman) I don't think women should serve in combat (in other areas, yes), and I'd feel much more secure knowing that a big strong man was coming to carry me out of a burning building than a big strong woman. But that's me.
ping
I don't think it, I know it. And I've seen it.
There have been a number of studies on the abilities of women to perform in the military, and in every case they've failed as a whole. Of course, those studies are promptly buried by the "brass" and politicians who want people to believe that everything is working wonderfully.
Most people don't realize that the military typically uses two grading standards for physical and performance-based tasks: one standard for men, and a substantially lower standard for women. (In cases where there's only one standard, it's because the tougher "mens" standards have been abolished so as to not make the women look and feel bad.)
Amazingly, many (most?) women in the military can not even perform to the lower "womens" standards. In training, either the women are given multiple opportunities to pass (whereas a man will fail on one try), or they are assisted by men, or the person who's doing the grading simply looks the other way and marks them with a passing grade. In today's America, it's all about meeting politically-mandated quotas, lives of service members--and national defense--be damned.
And that's not even getting into the issue of breaking down cohesiveness and fighting spirit in co-ed units. But don't get me started on the "sensitivity" training and effeminization of our military. That's a whole other problem altogether.
In short, women do NOT belong in combatant units. And they don't belong in any support unit either unless they can meet the same non-politically-lowered requirements set for all.
It sort of reminds me of the short story by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Harrison Bergeron.
Plot Summary for Harrison Bergeron (1995) (TV) "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." This is the premise of the Showtime film adaption of Kurt Vonnegut's futuristic short story Harrison Bergeron. The film centers around a young man (Harrison) who is smarter than his peers, and is not affected by the usual "Handicapping" which is used to train all Americans so everyone is of equal intelligence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.