You’re shaking your head? Wow, then you must be right… :rolleyes:
Oh, now you’re moving the goalposts… Where did you say in your original post that the local gov’t didn’t exist anymore. Frankly, though, if the entire local gov’t doesn’t exist, there aren’t likely to be any survivior to evacuate. But of course if there are absolutely no local authorities left, no one would expect to the feds to sit on their hands. If the local authorities do exist, one of the very first things they’d do is request federal help. Your scenario sheds no new light on the situation we’re discussing
Ummm, where did I ever say that the local gov’t in N.O. didn’t ask for federal help?
There are no issues of semantics here. There is a procedure in place for requesting federal aid. It was followed, and the federal aid came too slow. I’m not disputing that. Go back to your original post and the points I raised. You’ve strayed so far from that post now that I don’t even know what your point is anymore.
Hasn’t it been established in another Katrina thread that Bush’s state of emergency declaration in Louisiana preceded the hurricane’s arrival because it was actually for a previous storm that had swept through over a month before Katrina hit?
I’m sorry, I don’t recall which thread mentioned that and at this hour I can’t think of search terms that would find it without killing dozens of overworked hamsters.
I’m moving goalposts? As I stated in my initial post, which you have quoted many times in a desperate attempt to cling to an ever-shrinking shred of theoretical credulity, my analogy was in the case of a nuclear attack. This implies a certain set of circumstances, which should be clear to anyone, I would think… But you obviously need the scenario spelled out for you line by line. I assure you no goalposts have moved.
If I read some suggestions correctly here, some of the aforementioned deaths can best be attributed to a legal nicety as regards state’s rights. Bollocks and butt-whistle!
Under the circumstances, I expect nothing less from a President but immediate and massive action. If the Governor of Louisiana stands in the way of your bringing a glass of water to a dehydrated baby, instruct the 1st Cav to fucking shoot the Governor of Louisiana and proceed with the mission!
Shayna, I do apologize that i did not read the pdf file because for some reason I pdf files lock up on me. I assumed it had pretty much the same information linked in html format on the same site. I had read that because I used it several times the past few days as cites. I would like to read the III. Roles and Responsibilities portion sometime. So to fairly address your first post I was able to find this.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that your interpretation is that once the feds are directed to become part of the recovery effort, that it becomes a federal operation with the local authorities playing the assisting role. Kind of like when the FBI takes a criminal case out of local law enforcement hands in regards to crimes against federal law. The head of DHS seems to disagree with you.
And while it is obvious he is developing symptoms of a bad case of CYA, it does not mean he is wrong.
At the heart of it, I agree with your sentiments. If the Governor of my state turned out to be an incompetent buffoon who totally neglected preparing for a natural disaster and chocked on the relief efforts, I would beg for the feds to step in and use their experience to handle the situation. That’s just not how it is. And, honestly, as much as it always irked me about all of the disparaging comments towards the US government of late, this disaster has opened my eyes. You cannot count on them to do what’s right when the chips are down. My wife and I are in the process of getting together an emergency preparedness kit. Much more extensive that what the Red Cross and DHS has on their pamphlets.
A very good question. Can’t wait to hear the answer myself.
I stand corrected. Shoot this moron Brown first, then the Governor of Louisiana, and then anybody who offers any resistance to bringing aid, comfort and assitance to our own goddam people.
This is correct and accurate within the context of the incident command system. If people respond on their own, then it becomes an uncoordinated response, and they are stripping their own locality of response personnel. On a small scale we call it “free lancing” which is why responders are held in the manpower pool until requested. Those who choose to act on their own become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The whole article, for all its stinging criticism, is still a whitewash. For example, it mentions “A total breakdown of communications systems.” First of all, this is false: people were calling from hotels, blogging, even from the Superdome itself. Second, the communications systems weren’t “broken down”, they were cut off and sabotaged by the FEMA. Cite 1, Cite 2
Ok boys, now you’re just sniping and no one’s going to win this one. I’m tempted to put you both over my knee.
John Mace, I don’t know the difference between the Governor’s declaration and that of the President. I guess I assumed that once the President made a declaration of a disaster, it became a “national” or “federal” one. We all know what happens when we assume, so perhaps I was wrong. EddyTeddyFreddy’s post was interesting, though, and makes me wonder just what, specifically, Bush has declared for this particular disaster, and how that might affect the responsibilities of the various parties.
I am glad, however, to be finding common ground with you. It feels good for a change!
See above about assuming. I guess we’re all guilty of that sometimes. Apology accepted.
Well, kindof. Let’s break it down a little further and add the next paragraph for discussion, as well.
Yes, that’s just common courtesy and really doesn’t clarify what those roles and responsibilities are. But it further says:
Of course! That’s obvious, and, I think, what everyone expects. Initial responsibility belongs to the state. So where and when does it shift, if it shifts?
Ok, that still doesn’t say much, but as you interpret it, the Federal agencies are “assisting,” meaning they can’t be “running” the process. Fair enough, but it’s still so fucking vague.
Ok, now we’re getting a little somewhere. The phrase that stands out for me in this section is “to ensure.” Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but if someone acts “to ensure” something, to me that implies it’s their job to make sure it gets done.
More almost meaningless gobbledygook. But this part refers to pre-disaster planning stuff, as opposed to post-disaster efforts. However, if they’re talking about things that are of the greatest importance to the United States, I hardly think the Feds are abdicting those things to the states, either. But they’re still just talking in fucking circles!
Aha! Here they are recognizing my role and offering to coordinate with me, too. Does that mean I’m in charge, or are they? That was kindof tonge-in-cheek, but perhaps you can see why this paragraph and its interpretation shines some light on the possible meaning of the preceeding paragraph. I still think it’s supposed to mean, “we’re the coordinating body, so therefore we’re in charge.”
Again, there’s that word “initial.” What means this word? How long does the “initial” response last? Who the hell in this clusterfuck knows?
Ok, I’m reading this link and I have to stop a moment to both laugh and cringe at this part:
Fuckin’ Keystone Cops, I tell ya! Anyway, on with the discussion, commenting as I read through it. From what I’m reading so far, this article seems to be primarily addressing terrorist acts, as opposed to natural disasters, but tying the response agencies together because they’re “related.” I found this interesting. . .
We’re sure finding that out, aren’t we?!
Ah, now I’m coming to your quoted paragraph. Seems you may have stopped reading after that. Here’s the rest:
What do you see as the level of responsibility of someone who’s charged with “coordinating” things? Perhaps we’re working from different understandings of what that word means, which is where we keep running into disagreement with one another. Not "coordinate with, but “to coordinate,” because to me there’s subtle but important difference. If my boss asks me to coodinate with a co-worker, I assume he means we should work together to resolve an issue. If, however, he asks me “to coordinate” several co-workers on a project, I assume he wants me to oversee it and make sure it gets done.
I’m not sure that’s the case. I just couldn’t get past the first 33 pages of that document and most of it is written so poorly that it’s a wonder anyone anywhere knows who should do what, where, when and how.
That does seem to be the bottom line.
You can do even more, if you’re interested. I HIGHLY recommend FEMA’s CERT program. They’re offered in every major metropolitan area and many, many smaller communities all over the country. My husband and I have taken the course in 3 different jurisdictions (where we live, where we work and through the city of Los Angeles) and can attest to it being a great course that is very rewarding. Call your local fire or police department, or check this list (they rely on self-reporting, though, so can’t be relied upon as complete).
So, John Mace concludes that the Department of Homeland Security is entirely ready to deal with a nuclear attack, because nothing in the current situation equates whatsoever with the level of devastation or organization confusion currently being experienced in New Orleans.
Er, that should say “nothing in that ** situation equates whatsoever with the level of devastation or organizational** confusion currently being experienced in N.O.” Sheesh.
Hey, all he has to do is admit that he made a stupid analogy and didn’t think it thru all the way. If he wants to keep defendingi it, I’m going to keep pointing out how stupid it was.
From your respon to EFT:
But if you look at what is being “coordinated” it becomes clearer:
What that means is that FEMA is a one-stop shopping place for getting whatever the feds will give, most of which is financian assistance. Note that the main operational function of FEMA is said to be “restoration”-- ie, rebuilding after the storm has past. A btter analogy would be if your boss told you to coordinate all the stuff from “headquarters” that the satellite branch needed to complete it’s mission. He didn’t tell you to “complete the mission”, just make sure the satellite office has what it needs.
The last sentence is not a statement about the operations in effect a day or so before the disaster hits, but about continuously working with the local gov’t to ensure that the local gov’t has adequate plans and preparations.
Heh. Allow me to highlight yet a different set of words. . .
So we still interpret it differently. I can’t find where “most” of what they give is financial assistance, nor do I see where the “main” function is restoration – that was an add-on service it grew into. Neither am I clear on how “mostly” financial assistance occurs during a disaster.
Hey, if we can’t figure this shit out reading the same paragraph between us, is it any wonder that the bureaucrats can’t figure it out either?!
That post didn’t come out the way I wanted it. As I read that portion from the FEMA quote, I wanted to point out the difference between saying:
coordinate assistance provide to the local agencies…
as opposed to:
*coordinate and manage all federral activities taking place in the region…
If I think about this in terms of standard project management practices, one should be able to point to the one person who is in charge of the project. Who’s baby is it? It’s not Bush, it’s not the FEMA director, it’s not the LA governor. It’s the highest level person whose one and only job during the crisis is to manage the crisis. I can’t for the life of me figure out who that person is, and that might be one of the problems.
But lets ask ourselves… If we were to design the optimal system, would that “project manager” be a local/state official or a federal federal official? I can’t see that it would make sense for the person to be federal. What’s missing in this whole process is “who is the guy in charge”. It’s not Bush (although if it’s a federal guy, Bush is responisble for naming him) and it’s not Blanko (although if it’s a state guy, it’s Blanko’s responsibilty for naming him).
So now we know who’s shoulders it falls on on the Federal Level; the Secretary of the DoHS. But are they “in charge” over the people at state level? Bloody fuck I can’t figure it out anymore. But to answer your question. . .
I think in a situation like this, it absolutely should be someone at the federal level; in particular, the Secretary of the DoHS. Why? Because somebody has to step up. We’ve already seen what happens when there are too many chiefs and not enough indians, and it’s a nightmare I hope we never have to live through again. Some would justifiably argue that since the state is the one in disaster, the state would be in a better position to lead, or “coordinate.” However, we’ve seen that a disaster of this scope doesn’t only affect the state, nor does it only affect one particular state. So if Louisiana has to be in charge of DoHS and FEMA’s response and resource coordination in Louisiana, and Missississippi has to be in charge of it in Missississippi, and Alabama has to be in charge of things in Alabama, who the hell does FEMA help first? How do they know where to direct their resources? State A says “send us ‘this’, like as in yesterday – pronto!” Meanwhile, state B says, “Come here, we need ‘this’ here, too!” Now you’ve got all the indians bossing around the chief. It simply doesn’t make any sense.
Add to that the national ramifications of this disaster. I’d definitely say this qualifies as an “Incident of National Significance.” One of our major ports is compromised, fuel prices are going up nationally, I suspect that when the banks take the hit they’re going to take on all the non-payment of outstanding mortgages and small business loans, we’re going to see interest rates start to skyrocket, and so on. So I think it’s in the entire country’s best interest to have the feds step in and do the job they promised us they’d do – keep our homeland secure.
