While it is clear that tough economic times have affected most of North America's fire service, there also seems to be an impression, in some communities that they can do "without" some "parts" of their fire department. But...which parts?

Which roles?

Which tasks?

Which stations and most critically: which people?

What part of the fire department is not needed?

And then the issue further begs the question: Whose fire will be affected?

Which of the citizens in the community will have that fire where those cuts matter? It is often very predictable where the fires will be-not always, but often.

Sure, sometimes it is a long shot but those making the decisions must keep in mind that their decisions may -- but most often -- will not affect them personally. Odds are the ones making the decisions see themselves as the ones who will not have a fire. Not have a heart attack. Not have the need for a whole bunch of firefighters arriving in about four minutes and the members actually having a clue.

So the cuts are done and life goes on...until the next fire. or "that" fire. The one fire everyone will eventually talk about. History has proven there will be "that" fire.

But when it comes to self preservation, sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

Yes, believe it or now -- it's true.

Settle down.

For example, last June, a Chicago battalion chief slept through a run. Is that a problem? Absolutely for him, the firefighters and whoever is having the fire. We are on duty and expected to respond to runs. Going to fires is a core value, primary mission, whatever phrase you call it, for a fire department. Do we sometimes sleep through runs? Yes, but we can't.

And it was a serious run according to accounts: a fire bombing of a building with rescues and related working fire tasks. Chiefs have proven to be quite helpful when that happens. Running those scenes is what chiefs do. Chiefs must respond.

But here is where the "give it up" part comes in. A Chicago Fire Department (CFD) spokesman told the media that there are "always at least two chiefs at a working fire," so the chiefs absence would have had no impact on how the emergency was handled. That is the impression the reporters were given and that is what they printed and reported.