On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 21:07 -0700, Travis Pahl wrote:
> On 9/13/05, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>         On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:31 -0700, Travis Pahl wrote:
>         
>         >
>         > "Our Nation is prepared, as never before, to deal quickly
>         and capably
>         > with the consequences of disasters and other domestic
>         incidents." 
>         >   - Michael D. Brown, March 9, 2005
>         > http://www.fema.gov/library/speech_brown030905.shtm
>         
>         True, regardless of the response to Katrina. It is one thing
>         to say you 
>         are better prepared, it is another to say you are fully
>         prepared
>         (perfectly) for anything and everything.
> 
> Our nation was better prepared before FEMA's existance.  

Close, but not quite. Our nation was better prepared (before Katrina) in
spite of FEMA.

>  
> 
>         > "This first response and emergency management team has grown
>         because
>         > of the unfortunate events that have occurred in our nation.
>         But since
>         > the terrible events of the past, we now have a federal
>         department
>         > whose primary focus is homeland security. And, in
>         particular, a focus 
>         > on first response."  -Michael D. Brown, Monday November 8th
>         2004
>         > http://www.fema.gov/library/speech_brown110804.shtm
>         
>         Correct, when considering what DHS is for. DHS isn't for
>         natural 
>         disasters. They just try to shoehorn it in when they feel it
>         benefits
>         them. *cough*budgeting*cough*pressconferences*cough*.
> 
> FEMA is part of DHS.  He was refering to DHS and in particular his
> agency FEMA within DHS when he was speaking about the 'focus on first
> response'.

But he did not say for Natural Disasters.


BTW, did you actually read the link for this one or just pass it along
as it was passed to you? 

Anyone reading the link can see you are applying a context that was not
there. He often refers to first-responders, but the specifics are that
they are *not* FEMA people.  For example, Park Rangers and National
Guard  are not FEMA people.

Indeed here is the paragraph immediately preceding your quote:
"""
These first responder meetings provided great insights into what these
men and women do for their communities. This emergency management
family, our nation’s first responders are more than just the fire
fighters and local police, it is also the local health officials, the
local water, sewer and utilities officials, and in some communities even
the U. S. Coast Guard, the FBI and the state homeland security
departments.
"""

Note that none of those "first responders" are FEMA personnel. With the
possible exception of the FBI, I don't think any of them are even DHS
people.


Here is an interesting quote that raises simple questions:
"""As a result of the hurricanes and storms in Florida, FEMA established
a Disaster Field Operations Center in Orlando. Our federal coordinating
officer, Bill Carwile, coordinates everything for FEMA in that state,
and Bill literally shares an office with his state of Florida
counterpart, Craig Fugate. They both have signs on the office door and
they share two big tables that serve as a desk inside of the office…
sitting right across from one another. This is the way it should be,
everyone working together, reading the same page of the same book!"""

Did LA have something like this set up with FEMA? If so, why have we not
heard anything about their coordinating officer? Or is it the Governor
by fiat? 




>         > "We're not a first-responder agency,"  -Michael D. Brown,
>         Monday
>         > September 12th, 2005
>         >
>         
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/national/nationalspecial/13brown.html
>         
>         Again, true. FEMA is not and never was a first responder. Nor
>         should 
>         they be.
> 
> They should not exist (unconstitutional and inefficient) let alone be
> a first responder.  But as the quote above shows, he did think FEMA
> was a first responder before he failed miserably at it.


No, that is your interpretation, and it is a faulty one at that based on
your provided speech transcript.

And yes, FEMA should not exist at all. We can oppose it w/o being
ridiculous though. Further, this was not his first incident. Nobody
complained about him and "his response" last year. I'm not sure that
FEMA as a non-first responder coordinating only agency is
unconstitutional.

Attacking the head of FEMA in opposing FEMA is as counterproductive as
you can get. The problems with FEMA have nothing to do with who is in
charge. They are institutional, matters of scope and scale, and
organizational.

Cheers,
Bill

Heh, interesting sig to come up on this one.

--
Random Fortune of the moment:
        "Any news from the President on a successor?" he asked hopefully.
        "None," Anita replied.  "She's having great difficulty finding someone
qualified who is willing to accept the post."
        "Then I stay," said Dr. Fresh.  "I'm not good for much, but I
can at least make a decision."
        "Somewhere," he grumphed, "there must be a naive, opportunistic
young welp with a masochistic streak who would like to run the most
up-and-down bureaucracy in the history of mankind."
                -- R.L. Forward, "Flight of the Dragonfly"

_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw

Reply via email to