> > > 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. > > No he did not. Nor did he exclude natural disasters. Who cares? >
Clearly not you, but that is your problem. It matters though when you are talking about Natural Disasters. FEMA has never been an agency of first responders for natural disasters, look up the laws and regulations on it. It is for other type sof incidents such as NBC attacks. > > BTW, did you actually read the link for this one or just pass > it along > as it was passed to you? > > This was not forwarded to me. I searched for the quotes myself and > yes I read the whole speech. Try again without the bias, without looking for something to quote without appropriate context. > 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. > > He was speaking to first responders such as park rangers, firefighters > etc... But the federal agency he was refering to as a first responder > was the DHS and specifically FEMA. No, when he was referring to "now we have", he was referring clearly to DHS. He clearly satted (accurately) thay FEMA was already around and tha tit had become part of DHS. > > 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. > > No. And the person publishing the speech recognized something you > missed. He changed subjects (aka new paragraph). So did the person who published the speech change anything? How would you knwo what the person who published the speech (a routine task for a low level position most likely). Funny, that he changed subjects as you put was the point. That referring to FEMA as first responders was not a correct interpretation. > > 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, > > It is my interpretation, but it is also anyone elses interpretation > except you for some reason. Really, you've polled everyone else? Or do you mean you and the mouse in your pocket? > > And yes, FEMA should not exist at all. We can oppose it w/o > being > ridiculous though. > > We could also read that speech without being ridiculous too. I am not > sure how saying FEMA should be abolished is ridicolous. Straw man, I'm not making that argument. Dumb out of context quotes serving only as an intent to somehow impugn an individual as a hypocrite however, does not do that. It only harms your cause. > Further, this was not his first incident. Nobody > complained about him and "his response" last year. > > > I did. I have hated FEMA since I first learned what they do. So what specifically about *HIS* performance of his job, regardless of whether they are constitutional or not, or you hate FEMA or not, do you feel he did wrong? And what are your references for these complaints? I don't see any in the archives here so you didn't do it here. There was no media outcry over it last year. Complaining about FEMA and complaining about someone's job performance are distinct items. > I'm not sure that > FEMA as a non-first responder coordinating only agency is > unconstitutional. > > It is. But if you are unsure you can read the constitution. It is a > short read. If you find where it would authorize a FEMA let me know. Oh please that is easy. I could take the easy route and list it under "general welfare". Coordination of organizations that volunteer to be so coordinated in case of national disasters is something that does fit under a reasonable interpretation of the general welfare clause. Now, specifics such as providing rebuilding funds, etc. do not as they are specific welfare. So some of the things FEMA does are unconstitutional, but that does not mean the agency itself is. The military does things that are unconstitutional, and it is specifically authorized by the constitution. Do you also argue against the Red Cross and the Coast Guard? I don't see them specifically authorized. > Attacking the head of FEMA in opposing FEMA is as > counterproductive as > you can get. > > Why? Can I not oppose FEMA and also find its leaders pitiful excuses > for human beings at the same time? Again, strawman. You certainly *CAN* but you can't be productive in getting FEMA dismantled by doing so. More below. > > > The problems with FEMA have nothing to do with who is in > charge. > > > Never said they did. Then perhaps you can now see that working on things that you admit are not the problem is not productive. People *know* Brown wasn't responsible. But they accept the offering of him anyway. People *know* that a newly elected president or governor, who's first budget hasn't even been submitted are not responsible for the existing budget and/or booming/stalling economy. But we like the theater it provides, so we play along. It is easier than admitting we don't really have any control over these things. By attacking Brown (or any single person) in times like this you only perpetuate the theatrical event. You play along. You miss the opportunity to point out the inherent impracticalities of a national single organization doing this, you miss the opportunity to illustrate that belief in the almighty government saving you from the rooftop is not a safe plan. Instead you play along with the blame game, the shells get moved and nothing changes. Kinda like all the complaining we do to our spouses and each other on this list about FEMA (and other things). They make us feel a bit better because we "vented", but they don't really do anything else. > But the problem with government is it is setup in a way that people > such as Brown will naturally rise to the top. Government or not, this is true. This is true in ALL organizations. It's par tof the Peter Principle. It's a decent read, you should try it. It basically goes like this: People are promoted to their level of incompetence. Those who are still competent in their position have not had sufficient time and levels of hierarchy to do so. It is a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with it being government. I offer Carly Fiorina as an example of this in the private sector. There are millions of these examples that are entirely outside of government. FEMA could be an NGO and it still would have the issues that FEMA as a FGO. This is all merely a clarification/extension of this: > They are institutional, matters of scope and scale, and > organizational. Only when people learn/realize that any single organization to coordinate a response to an event of this scale, or a full on revolution, will FEMA go away. Any argument that plays along with the theater people are comfortable in is counterproductive to getting them to this point. Cheers, Bill -- Random Fortune of the moment: Remember folks. Street lights timed for 35 mph are also timed for 70 mph. -- Jim Samuels _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
