I've never...

....heard of anything so absurd. Well, actually I have heard some pretty absurd things, but this one is a step above - or below- many others.

Firefighters in rural Indiana did not respond to a 911 call about a house-fire because the owners had failed to pay the annual $75.00 fee to the city for rural fire protection. Apparently the city has a law that firefighters cannot respond under those circumstances, so they had to ignore the call.

Imagine how hard that must have been for the firefighters. I have always likened them to the knights of old who are called to rescue those in distress. The ones I have known have always considered the job much more than a job, and it would distress them to be held back by words on a document.

In this incident in Indiana, the firefighters did respond to a call from a nearby neighbor who was concerned about the fire spreading to his house, but they could do nothing about the house that was burning to the ground right in front of them.

A city official was quoted as saying that the firefighters had to abide by the law. "If they put out the fire of a homeowner who had not paid, there is no incentive for other people to pay."

So a house burns down, but, by gosh, the law was upheld.

Maybe if the firefighters were allowed to put out all the fires they were called to, which is what they are trained to do, homeowners would be so grateful they would pay the fee twice over.  Ever think of that all you folks who are stuck to the letter of the law?

I'm feeling real secure over this

According to a news story in the New York Times, an eight year old New Jersey boy is subject to extra scrutiny from TSA agents when he flies because his name appears on a "selectee" list.

Najlah Feanny Hicks said her son, Michael Hicks, a Cub Scout who travels often with his family, has had to go through extra security screening for most of his young life, receiving his first invasive pat-down at the age of two.

The "selectee" list contains around 13,500 names of people who are subjected to higher levels of security screening at airports, a larger group than the government's official no-fly list.

Apparently the boy gets extra pat downs at airport security because he shares the same name as someone else who was already on the list.

This is just another example of the absolutely ridiculous approach to airport security that creates havoc for travelers. This blanket approach to restrictions -- no liquids, take off your shoes, stay in your seat for the last hour before landing -- may be making us safer, but I don't know for sure. I haven't seen any reports of how many possible terrorists have been caught since these restrictions went into place.

And what possible benefit to our safety was there in frisking a two-year-old boy just because his name was on a list? Not because there was something in his background, or his family's background to raise alarms. He just has the wrong name.

I also wonder why the child's name can't be taken off the list? Is the list cast in stone?

----------
What do you think? Is this a necessary precaution?