Subj : Re: Hurricane recovery
To   : Richardw
From : Finnigann
Date : Mon Sep 12 2005 03:11 pm

-=> Richardw wrote to Finnigann <=-

 Ri>   Re: Re: Hurricane recovery
 Ri>   By: Finnigann to richardw on Fri Sep 09 2005 08:55 pm

 > -=> richardw wrote to Frank Reid <=-
 >
 >  ri>   Re: Re: Hurricane recovery
 >  ri>   By: Frank Reid to richardw on Thu Sep 08 2005 10:40 pm
 >
 > How do you streamline an agency's whose job it is to anticipate and amilerat
 > whatever mother nautre and man care to throw at us?

 Ri> Obviously there's a lot that can be done.  This disaster was feared for
 Ri> many hours before it actually happened.  I would think assistance
 Ri> should have be on "red alert" long before they were.  The problem was
 Ri> administrative.  So, I think, you cut the 15 levels (or however many)
 Ri> of administration, thereby lowering your financial expenditure, AND
 Ri> increasing the response time of the remaining individuals.  Anyhow, I
 Ri> really can't answer your question without a better understanding of the
 Ri> organisational structure of the agency in question. I'm flattered that
 Ri> you might think I could.  But, in any case, why would making another
 Ri> agency, to perform the same basic tasks, be any better?

Who said anything about 'ANOTHER' agency. FEMA was already there (back under
Clinton). I think rolling it into Homeland security was a mistake. It had to
add a couple of layers just with that.

This particular event was anticipated and it was understood that it was of
vital national interest to have it maintained. If the corruption was so
widespread, then it should have been nationalized until it was secure.

The Feds had no troubles taking over the Air-traffic controlers jobs when it
was needed. This was a worse case situation. Maybe it was getting better, or
maybe it was getting worse. 

.... Battery assembly...some required. 
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
 þ Synchronet þ Bits-N-Bytes BBS    Onehellofa BBS     bnb.dtdns.net

.