Subj : Re: Good State of FEMA article
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : John I
Date : Wed Sep 07 2005 16:57:33

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Nick wrote:

> John I wrote:
> 
>> Here is a http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-09-22/cover.html good
>> story on the state of FEMA in 2004 and the election implications of
>> the Bush administration's response to the 2004 Florida hurricane
>> season.  
>> 
>> 'Fridays don't get much busier than this. It's the morning of Sept.
>> 3, and Federal Emergency Management Agency headquarters in
>> Washington, D.C., is running at a full clip, having mobilized a cadre
>> of disaster-response specialists in its National Emergency Operations
>> Center the day before. "This is our 'war room,'" a FEMA employee
>> explains. 
>> 
>> "Right now we're in 24-hours-a-day activation," he says. "It's a
>> double- whammy." Indeed, the agency is still busy helping Florida
>> recover from Hurricane Charley's punishing winds and rain when
>> satellite images show that an even greater storm, Hurricane Frances,
>> will soon make landfall. It appears so threatening that most of
>> FEMA's personnel on the ground, along with 2.5 million Floridians,
>> have evacuated from the storm's projected path. ' 
>> 
>> 
>> '"They're doing a good job," one former FEMA executive says of the
>> Bush administration's response efforts. "And the reason why they're
>> doing that job is because it's so close to the election, and they
>> can't fuck it up, otherwise they lose Florida--and if they lose
>> Florida, they might lose the election."'
>>
> <snip> 
>> 
>> Too bad it's not an election year.
> 
> 
> There you go with no facts again.
> Some guy saying that they are doing a good job just because it is an 
> election year doesn't make it true.  Watch me say something: John is a 
> closet neo-conservative.  OMG it's right there in black and white.  It 
> must be true!!!


Did you read the article.?


> 
> I was looking back at http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/ (there is a 
> place on the bottom of the page where you can see storms by year)
> Clinton never really had much in the way of hurricane disasters to test 
> how FEMA would react when he was president so it is difficult to predict 
> exactly how things would have turned out.

You are conveniently forgetting Floyd in 2000.  And NC didn't even vote for 
Clinton. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=7270

And there were earthquakes and floods, not to mention the 1995 Oklahoma City 
Bombing and the Northridge quake( http://www.drj.com/special/quake94.html) 
during his tenure. All received FEMA assistance.

Also, much of the emphasis was on mitigation.  so instead of confiscating 
little old lady's nail clippers, they were working on threat reduction.

The overarching point is that during Clinton the department was a 
professional organization staffed with people who where specialists in the 
area of emergency management.  Now all levels of management are occupied by 
people whose qualifications are that they helped run some level of Bush's 
election campaign, were really good fundraisers, or otherwise were cronies.
 
To argue that the two very differnt organizations are equivalent is simply 
absurd.


> 
> If you want to see an article about stupid things FEMA is doing look at 
> this one: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3004197
> 

This would be the one where firefighters are being trained to pass out 
leaflets and pose for Operation Photo-Op?

http://tinyurl.com/9fhb6

.