On 9/18/05, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know they have never been a first responder for natural disasters. That is the whole point I am trying to make. The former chief of FEMA however thought differently. He was talking to a bunch of people in FLORIDA about how we now his department will now have "a focus on first response." Is Florida known for natural disasters or terrorists attacks?
The context is quite clear. You however are chosing to pretend it is not.
His agency is part of the DHS. His point was that in the past the federal government had not been a first responder and now his agency and the larger department it is a part of is focusing on first response.
I have no idea if he changed something. If you want to argue that the person who typed the speech changed what was said, fine. I will not argue that because I certainly have better things to do than try to find the original video footage.
What are you talking about?
I mean it is not to complicated to figure out. I have sent it to many lists that combined have probably 3-4 hundred people. You are the ONLY one that has interpreted it differently than I have.
If my sole cause in life was to ellimnate FEMA maybe you have a point. I do have other things I consider important. Pointing out that high level government officials should never be trusted is another thing I feel is important. Providing contradictory quotes does help that. And for the majority of people (everyone I have sent it to but you) it has I am sure helped lower thier perception of government officials some which I consider good. And by association I think it has probably lowered peoples opinion of FEMA as well. Alot? No, but some.
He did not do anything to elliminate the department or decrease its budget or decrease FEMAs role in peoples lives and affect on our nations economy. Instead like all politicians he did what he could to give himself more power.
First of all I do not post every opinion i have on this list. Second I do not think I have been a member for over a year.
Yeah so what? Can I not do both?
You mean the wrong route? Anything could be classified as general welfare if you want to use it terms that people use it in now. Obviously that was not the intent of the writers of the constitution. They were trying to make a LIMITED government, so certainly they would not mean for 'general welfare' to mean EVERYTHING as you are suggesting. I expected better from you.
How do you consider that reasonable?
How do the two differ that you think one is specific and one is general? In both cases it is federal money being spent to help specific people.
The Red Cross is not a government agency. The Coast Guard is part of the military. I do argue against the coast guard participating in non military missions.
It is not the sole problem of FEMA, but it is _A_ problem with FEMA and with government in general.
I have not missed anything. You are just are assuming since I am pointing out one thing I must have missed everything else. Showing that the people in charge of government are idiots and hypocrits at a time when they see thousands of people dying because they trusted these idiots and hypocrites (at all levels of government) is a productive thing to do. When people continue to think that our leaders and our government agencies are the answer they will continue to end up with horrible results. When they realize that all these people are idiots and hypocrits and that large government only attracts such people they will start voting for people that will decrease and elliminate government.
It does more than your trying to defend FEMA and its hypocritical ex leader.
Actually it does have to do with government. In a private organization they stop one level above their level of competance and often are demoted one level shortly later. In government they often keep moving up. Brown is a perfect example. He was not competant at any of his other positions, but moved into a very high level position because he had donated lots of money to the right people.
Notive what happen to Fiorina. She was taken out of power not long after being offered that job. Brown however had failed at previous jobs and kept moving up.
>
> 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.
I know they have never been a first responder for natural disasters. That is the whole point I am trying to make. The former chief of FEMA however thought differently. He was talking to a bunch of people in FLORIDA about how we now his department will now have "a focus on first response." Is Florida known for natural disasters or terrorists 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.
The context is quite clear. You however are chosing to pretend it is not.
> 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.
His agency is part of the DHS. His point was that in the past the federal government had not been a first responder and now his agency and the larger department it is a part of is focusing on first response.
> 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).
I have no idea if he changed something. If you want to argue that the person who typed the speech changed what was said, fine. I will not argue that because I certainly have better things to do than try to find the original video footage.
Funny, that he changed subjects as you put was the point. That referring
to FEMA as first responders was not a correct interpretation.
What are you talking about?
> 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?
I mean it is not to complicated to figure out. I have sent it to many lists that combined have probably 3-4 hundred people. You are the ONLY one that has interpreted it differently than I have.
> 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.
If my sole cause in life was to ellimnate FEMA maybe you have a point. I do have other things I consider important. Pointing out that high level government officials should never be trusted is another thing I feel is important. Providing contradictory quotes does help that. And for the majority of people (everyone I have sent it to but you) it has I am sure helped lower thier perception of government officials some which I consider good. And by association I think it has probably lowered peoples opinion of FEMA as well. Alot? No, but some.
> 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?
He did not do anything to elliminate the department or decrease its budget or decrease FEMAs role in peoples lives and affect on our nations economy. Instead like all politicians he did what he could to give himself more power.
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.
First of all I do not post every opinion i have on this list. Second I do not think I have been a member for over a year.
Complaining about FEMA and complaining about someone's job performance
are distinct items.
Yeah so what? Can I not do both?
> 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".
You mean the wrong route? Anything could be classified as general welfare if you want to use it terms that people use it in now. Obviously that was not the intent of the writers of the constitution. They were trying to make a LIMITED government, so certainly they would not mean for 'general welfare' to mean EVERYTHING as you are suggesting. I expected better from you.
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.
How do you consider that reasonable?
Now, specifics such as
providing rebuilding funds, etc. do not as they are specific welfare.
How do the two differ that you think one is specific and one is general? In both cases it is federal money being spent to help specific people.
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.
The Red Cross is not a government agency. The Coast Guard is part of the military. I do argue against the coast guard participating in non military missions.
> 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.
It is not the sole problem of FEMA, but it is _A_ problem with FEMA and with government in general.
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.
I have not missed anything. You are just are assuming since I am pointing out one thing I must have missed everything else. Showing that the people in charge of government are idiots and hypocrits at a time when they see thousands of people dying because they trusted these idiots and hypocrites (at all levels of government) is a productive thing to do. When people continue to think that our leaders and our government agencies are the answer they will continue to end up with horrible results. When they realize that all these people are idiots and hypocrits and that large government only attracts such people they will start voting for people that will decrease and elliminate government.
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.
It does more than your trying to defend FEMA and its hypocritical ex leader.
> 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.
Actually it does have to do with government. In a private organization they stop one level above their level of competance and often are demoted one level shortly later. In government they often keep moving up. Brown is a perfect example. He was not competant at any of his other positions, but moved into a very high level position because he had donated lots of money to the right people.
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.
Notive what happen to Fiorina. She was taken out of power not long after being offered that job. Brown however had failed at previous jobs and kept moving up.
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
_______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
