Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Waiting For The Cries Of Outrage

    Posted by James R. Rummel on February 18th, 2011 (All posts by )

    A veteran firefighter with 28 years of service refused to go with his crew to aid the injured when Rep Giffords was shot in Arizona. He says that the reason why was due to “political bantering”, as most of his fellow firefighters did not share his own political views.

    But what were these political views which caused such division?

    The firefighter in question, Mark Ekstrum, started his career as a registered Democrat. He switched his affiliation to Independent 11 years before the shooting occurred, and insists that he voted for Rep. Giffords in the last election.

    Make of that what you will, but it doesn’t look like he was a Conservative.

     

    6 Responses to “Waiting For The Cries Of Outrage”

    1. LibertyAtStake Says:

      Mark Estrum’s politics are immaterial. He didn’t do his apolitical job when called upon. He should be canned for dereliction.

      Wisconsin’s derelict teachers should be next.

      d(^_^)b
      http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
      “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    2. Michael Kennedy Says:

      The guy sounds weird. It’s appropriate that he retire.

    3. Bill Waddell Says:

      Like the shooter in Tucson, this guy sounds like an individual hearing voices in his head that had nothing to do with politics. Making a political issue out of this is a mistake.

    4. Adrew X Says:

      Nothing much to add, except that I read the whole article and cannot make heads or tails of any of it. He was a conservative at odds with his crew, so he did not respond to this Democratic event featuring…. the candidate he voted for? He was a liberal while his crew was conservative, and that’s why he did not respond to this…. Democratic event, while they did??

      WTF???

      Apparently, a crisis arose, and this fireman says he could not respond for either political reasons or just because he’s not getting along with his crew for whatever reasons….

      Dude, we don’t really need to know. You’re done. Here’s a dictionary. Look up the word “professional”, ya might learn something.

    5. Shannon Love Says:

      Given that the firefighters were not dispatched until 90 minutes after the shooting, it is possible that Ekstrum and his colleagues got in verbal fight over whether the Tea Party or conservatives in general were responsible for the shooting. It is not clear which side that Ekstrum was on.

      If Ekstrum was pro-Tea Party and his team was mostly anti-Tea Party, he might have been the target of accusations that people like him has caused the shooting. Or it could have been the other way around. Given the stories emphasis on his politics and the dynamics of the media coverage, it would seem most likely to be the former.

      However, even so, I agree that there isn’t any excuse short of violence that is acceptable for emergency response personnel. Unless he really thought that the disagreement was so major it would cause a team dysfunction that would endanger lives, then he should have sucked it up and gone.

      Still, it would be interesting to hear the entire story.

    6. DensityDuck Says:

      His political affiliation is not mentioned, which means “Democrat”.

      Because you know that they asked. And if he’d answered “Republican” it would be been the first word in the headline.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.