JohnH,
That is a scary thought, that we would allow the Fed's to by pass the
Constitution and all state and national laws anytime they think it is
advantageous. I am sure Chuck has rethought his position, and understands
the local and state authorities need to be prepared if he is going to be
protected from natural and manmade disasters.

It is important that we identify those areas where NO and LA and FEMA failed
so everyone can learn and not duplicate those mistakes.


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:09:41 -0400, "Starbuck's"

wrote:

Gould,

No I didn't miss that response. Since I am not blinded by my political
beliefs, I understand the magnitude of the disaster was substantially
amplified due to the mismanagement of local authorities and the state
authorities. If a city, county or state do not take appropriate action 72
hrs in advance, there is nothing anyone can do to prepare for locals who
refuse to implement a evacuation plan.

I think most people realize FEMA needs to make vast improvements, and
hopefully they will.

Only an biased political hack would expect FEMA to be able to compensate
for
the inability of local and state agencies to implement an effective
evacuation plan. That would be similar to me pouring gas all over my
home,
setting it on fire, and then yelling at the fire dept. because my home
burned to the ground.

Since I have always assumed you were not a biased political hack, I
thought
you might have reconsidered your position about placing all the blame on
FEMA. We should be worried about having an organization made up of local,
state and national agencies to protect us from natural or man made
disaster.
It is not acceptable to say, yeah, I might have screwed up, by why didn't
you realize I was too incompetent to implement my evacuation plan.

If we are going to stop further lose of life, all agencies are going to
have
to admit their mistakes and take concrete steps to correct these mistakes.

Chuck's response:

I guess I don't really know, but none of those questions relates to my
opinion that the newspaper columnist is wrong about Katrina damaging
the long-term propects for the GOP. Aging people become increasingly
self centered, cautious, financially reluctant (particularly when
retired on a fixed income), and nervous about security. You guys have a
lock for another 25-30 years. Don't worry. :-)


Perhaps we need a "Can't Handle the Problem Act" whereby the governors
immediately transfer operational control of all assets to the FEDGOV. The
National Guard units would not be federalized, but the operational control
would
rest with FEMA, or whoever the big cheese becomes.

What else should the act contain?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:54:33 -0400, "Starbuck's"
wrote:

JohnH,
That is a scary thought, that we would allow the Fed's to by pass the
Constitution and all state and national laws anytime they think it is
advantageous. I am sure Chuck has rethought his position, and understands
the local and state authorities need to be prepared if he is going to be
protected from natural and manmade disasters.

It is important that we identify those areas where NO and LA and FEMA failed
so everyone can learn and not duplicate those mistakes.


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:09:41 -0400, "Starbuck's"

wrote:

Gould,

No I didn't miss that response. Since I am not blinded by my political
beliefs, I understand the magnitude of the disaster was substantially
amplified due to the mismanagement of local authorities and the state
authorities. If a city, county or state do not take appropriate action 72
hrs in advance, there is nothing anyone can do to prepare for locals who
refuse to implement a evacuation plan.

I think most people realize FEMA needs to make vast improvements, and
hopefully they will.

Only an biased political hack would expect FEMA to be able to compensate
for
the inability of local and state agencies to implement an effective
evacuation plan. That would be similar to me pouring gas all over my
home,
setting it on fire, and then yelling at the fire dept. because my home
burned to the ground.

Since I have always assumed you were not a biased political hack, I
thought
you might have reconsidered your position about placing all the blame on
FEMA. We should be worried about having an organization made up of local,
state and national agencies to protect us from natural or man made
disaster.
It is not acceptable to say, yeah, I might have screwed up, by why didn't
you realize I was too incompetent to implement my evacuation plan.

If we are going to stop further lose of life, all agencies are going to
have
to admit their mistakes and take concrete steps to correct these mistakes.

Chuck's response:

I guess I don't really know, but none of those questions relates to my
opinion that the newspaper columnist is wrong about Katrina damaging
the long-term propects for the GOP. Aging people become increasingly
self centered, cautious, financially reluctant (particularly when
retired on a fixed income), and nervous about security. You guys have a
lock for another 25-30 years. Don't worry. :-)


Perhaps we need a "Can't Handle the Problem Act" whereby the governors
immediately transfer operational control of all assets to the FEDGOV. The
National Guard units would not be federalized, but the operational control
would
rest with FEMA, or whoever the big cheese becomes.

What else should the act contain?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


That brings up the issue of who determines when the problem can't be handled. As
the mayor, for arguments sake, has no assets, should the governor have the
decision?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
That brings up the issue of who determines when the problem can't be
handled. As
the mayor, for arguments sake, has no assets, should the governor have the
decision?

Since we have decided Bush is responsible for everything that happens in the
world, I guess we should make him responsible for deciding when he thinks
local or state governments need help and he should override the Constitution
and local, state and national laws. Anytime a President thinks someone
needs help, he can suspend all laws and the constitution. We know this new
policy would never be abused. ; )

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:21:46 -0400, "Star-bucks"
wrote:


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
That brings up the issue of who determines when the problem can't be
handled. As
the mayor, for arguments sake, has no assets, should the governor have the
decision?

Since we have decided Bush is responsible for everything that happens in the
world, I guess we should make him responsible for deciding when he thinks
local or state governments need help and he should override the Constitution
and local, state and national laws. Anytime a President thinks someone
needs help, he can suspend all laws and the constitution. We know this new
policy would never be abused. ; )

Perhaps not by Bush!

But really, who should have the power to say, "FEMA, it's all yours. Take over."
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

JohnH,

I believe it should be up to the local government to ask for state
assistance, and the state government should ask for federal assistance.

It appears that some in here believe it is up to FEMA to decide when they
should step in. If that happens, I can imagine FEMA stepping in a week
before landfall initially, then stepping in permentantly to make sure the
local and state governments are properly prepared. Heck why was resources
on local and state governments, when the FEDS can do it all.

--

Starbuck

Being weird isn't enough.


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:21:46 -0400, "Star-bucks"

wrote:


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
. ..
That brings up the issue of who determines when the problem can't be
handled. As
the mayor, for arguments sake, has no assets, should the governor have
the
decision?

Since we have decided Bush is responsible for everything that happens in
the
world, I guess we should make him responsible for deciding when he thinks
local or state governments need help and he should override the
Constitution
and local, state and national laws. Anytime a President thinks someone
needs help, he can suspend all laws and the constitution. We know this
new
policy would never be abused. ; )

Perhaps not by Bush!

But really, who should have the power to say, "FEMA, it's all yours. Take
over."
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:29:30 -0400, "Starbuck"
wrote:

JohnH,

I believe it should be up to the local government to ask for state
assistance, and the state government should ask for federal assistance.

It appears that some in here believe it is up to FEMA to decide when they
should step in. If that happens, I can imagine FEMA stepping in a week
before landfall initially, then stepping in permentantly to make sure the
local and state governments are properly prepared. Heck why was resources
on local and state governments, when the FEDS can do it all.

I agree with what you say 'should be'. But, as we've seen, that doesn't work
unless the local and state officials are competent and use their own resources.
This time neither was true, so the feds got blamed for not solving the problem.
And, more importantly, the people suffered needlessly because of it.

Today's Wash Post highlights the problems of the feds trying to work through the
local governments to get things done. It isn't happening. As Bush is going to be
held responsible anyway, I believe the feds should just do the job. In the case
of 'where to place shelters', the feds should pick a spot and put them there,
rather than try to coordinate with the locals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...referrer=email


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."