Subj : Re: Hurricane recovery
To   : Frank Reid
From : richardw
Date : Fri Sep 09 2005 10:28 am

  Re: Re: Hurricane recovery
  By: Frank Reid to richardw on Thu Sep 08 2005 10:40 pm

 >  > I disagree.  We need one response team capable of dealing with whatever
 >  > disaster comes along.  The response is similiar *irregardless* of the
 >  > cause.  Provide a means of evacuation, food, medicine, shelter, and
 >  > apparently some baby-sitting at gun-point may be required as well.
 >  >
 >  > I don't see the need to fund 2 seperate agencies.  Everybody today seems
 >  > to think we need a BIGGER government than the monolith we have now!
 >  > ugh!
 > 
 > In a perfect world, I'd agree, but I think this disaster clearly exposes the
 > monolithic nature of a large bureacracy along with its inherent inability to
 > respond/adapt dynamically.  Yes, no one anticipated a storm on that magnitud
 > (or the destruction it would cause), and no matter how well you plan, you wi
 > always have something you didn't expect.  But, collectively, we didn't even 
 > up a good fight on Katrina.
 > 
 > I support a couple of the DHS agencies (formerly independent) directly, and 
 > will say that there are still *significant* bureaucratic obstacles in respon
 > and coordination.  In theory (and on paper), combining all those departments
 > makes good sense.  However, in reality, they just don't work seamlessly
 > together.
 > 
 > I think someone probably modeled the organization after the (obviously very
 > effective) military.  Our military can put "bomb on target" in a matter of
 > minutes after someone in D.C. conceives the idea.  We were obviously equally
 > effective in responding to Katrina, once engaged.  But there's a big differe
 > between the autocratic military chain-of-command that facilitates that kind 
 > response and the bureacratic flow that governs most agencies, particularly
 > those which dispense funds rather than simply consumes them!
 > 
 > I'm unconvinced that the former FEMA (as a standalone agency) would have don
 > any differently in this disaster, mainly because of the scope.  But I suspec
 > we wouldn't have seen people suffering from dehydration while in earshot of
 > emergency personnel, while relief agencies were being denied access to the a
 > by, essentially, a peer organization.  During emergencies, orders must be ab
 > to flow horizontally as well as vertically, and bureacracies just don't
 > facilitate that... so why make it taller?

I'm not saying make it taller.  I'm saying streamline the agency we have 
now.  Fix the problem.  I don't think the solution is to add another 
agency.  That's akin to buying another car when the fuel pump fails.

---
 þ Synchronet þ Eleemosynary ELF - eelf.richardw.net

.