Journal pudge's Journal: SnoCo Councilman Mike Cooper: "Have You Stopped Beating Your 7
Snohomish County Councilman, and current Chairman, Democrat Mike Cooper -- himself a former firefighter -- believes that increasing the initial cost of homes by thousands of dollars, and the cost of maintenance of those homes by hundreds or thousands more over their lifetimes, is an acceptable thing to force on homeowners in the county. (Ultimately, the proposal was not acted on.)
I am not sure why anyone would be in favor of this; anyone who wants the sprinklers and can afford them, can get them. Why force it?
Regardless, it's one thing to believe that the government has a right, or obligation, to force their views of cost vs. safety onto consumers. It's another thing to be a complete jerk about it.
KING5 had better video than this on May 6, the date of the public hearing, but I can't find it on their web site. So I pulled this off the Council's video web site. Here's the lovely transcript of an exchange (starting at about 46:20) between Cooper (on the far left of the council table) and David Toyer, a representative of the Master Builders Association (just off the screen to the left, at the podium).
This clip is just a small portion of the entire discussion.
Cooper: "So, my question for you and your organization is: what is the acceptable kill rate? Because for me and the people that are sitting out here who do the job [of firefighting] every day, it's zero. For the Master Builders, what is the acceptable kill rate? Before you would put a price on a human life?"
Toyer: "I think you're looking at this in the wrong way, Mr. Cooper. I think you're looking at an issue which is: what is the consumer choice on this? We all have when we, anything we choose, whether it be life insurance, car insurance, house insurance, we have options that we can choose. Now there are things at the state level, they're like, put mandates on medical insurance, that certain coverage be provided.
"But it's at what cost and what level of safety does the individual want for themselves? And I think you need to leave it to the choice of the individual, and it shouldn't be mandated by this county council."
Cooper: "So the Master Builders' position is, it's acceptable for people to die in fires."
I hope Council District 3 is proud of their representative.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Bawww (Score:2)
Capitalism puts a price on everything, including life, news at 11.
If I thought that the risk of dying in a house fire * the pain and misery of dying in such a shitty way * conversion factor to $ + insurance bonus for having one > sprinkler cost then I'd buy a fire suppression system (probably not a sprinkler, too much computer gear to ruin. For that reason, I'd probably disable the sprinkler system if I moved into a house with one). Maybe instead of flipping out over it, he should try getting a job at a
What a prick (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite part is when he said that NO ONE dies who has sprinklers (in a certain time period and location) ... except one guy who was in the chair where the fire started.
So why is he not banning flammable chairs?
this needs to be a national debate (Score:2)
Cooper: "So the Master Builders' position is, it's acceptable for people to die in fires."
As multimed said, it's an unconscionable argument. But only when pandering to mindless emotion and used thusly as a weapon to try to get the upper hand in a political skirmish. But otherwise, I think the question in its more general form needs to be brought up, regarding something significant and at the national level, so that the people can be confronted and made to think about it, and then decide, rather than continu
Re: (Score:2)
I read what I thought was a particularly well-said response to a blog post RG journaled about yesterday, that I think is related:
Sound like that might have been an interesting discussion, got a link?
The people need to be challenged with the notion that the answer to that firefighter's question is yes, it is acceptable for (a small number of) people to die in fires.
This ties back to a larger point I've been trying to make lately, that man of the conservative/Republican positions and ideals don't translate as well to the 30-second sound bite. I agree with your premise, that somehow, people need to be challenged to think things like this through deeper. But try and say just what you did if you're an elected official or running for office. Your words will be played back, pasted on signs and it's time t
Re: (Score:1)
got a link?
Right here. [slashdot.org]
The danger there of course, is the inevitable "you're just reading the talking points" retort...
Some basic education of the American public in critical thinking and a few of the most commonly occurring logical fallacies would also be nice. If a president really wanted to do something about the tone of the debate in this country, a mini public awareness campaign on how for example ad hominem and other responses of avoidance and obfuscation are not really convincing might go a long way t
Why only new houses? (Score:2)
Why not retrofit every home with sprinklers?
Are you saying councilman, that it's acceptable for people who can't afford new homes to be burned alive?