Subj : Re: Good State of FEMA article To : alt.tv.farscape From : Nick Date : Wed Sep 07 2005 18:24:58 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape John I wrote: > 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."' >>> >> >>> >>> 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.? Is there more? I thought you pasted it all in and just gave the link as a reference. >> 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 There is nothing convenient about it. I went to the wunderground site and then checked year by year. It looks like Floyd (which was 1999, btw) was a category 1 when it hit. I tend to think of category 1s are not all that severe. Perhaps it has to do with growing up here. Anyway, the reason I brought all that up was because of something I saw in rec.humor.funny. I will post it here: > From: Mark.Shepard@xerox.com (Shepard, Mark R) > Subject: wonder if they are telling us something Occurred to me that hurricanes seem to happen in Republican administrations. So I checked the top 10 past hurricanes. All happen during Republican administrations except one. Supposed God is trying to tell us something? =20 Not including Katrina, the total is $139 billion, of which $10.8 happened during a Democratic administration. Does that mean God is 92% Democratic? Andrew 1992 43.7 billion Republican Charley 2004 15.0 Republican Ivan 2004 14.2 Republican Hugo 1989 12.3 Republican Agnes 1972 11.3 Republican Betsy 1965 10.8 Democrat Frances 2004 8.9 Republican Camille 1969 8.9 Republican Diane 1955 7.0 Republican Jeanne 2004 6.9 Republican all in 2004 dollars > 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. Would you not put the WTC in the same category with Oklahoma City bombing? I am arguing that the Clinton FEMA did not have the kind of hurricane disasters that Bush is having so one is unable to compare apples to apples. You don't seem to be arguing anything but are ranting about political cronyism. >> 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 Yes, that would be the one. I know a firefighter from Atlanta who went down to New Orleans Sunday. I am interested in hearing from him when he gets back. .