Floods in England

"spampot" ""spampot\"@NO SPAM orph.org" wrote in message
...
Not Likely wrote:

Thank you both, but my question was *why* is it a good thing that England
doesn't have FEMA 'helping' them? Are they bad at what they are supposed
to do? Or is it because New Orleans is still in need of help so long
after their disaster?

The entire federal response to Katrina was criminally inadequate,
shamefully slow and entangled - I'm sure Olwyn Mary can add more colorful
details. No one did their job, they just sat in Washington whining and
pointing fingers at each other -- oh, and by the way, the states couldn't
cope because their National Guard, which is the main security force in
such situations, had been "federalized" so they were nearly all over in
Iraq on active military duty (but that's a rant for another time). The
public outcry was such that the Dept of Homeland Security, which "owns"
FEMA, was reorganized -- but the situation in New Orleans is still such
that the very word FEMA is now a joke here in the U.S. -- or a warning
("We're from FEMA and we're here to help you").

FEMA used to be up to the job, but it's been marginalized for years so
their resources were inadequate, but it didn't help to have a chief whose
qualifications were being head of a horse-racing outfit.

So "Heckuva job, Brownie" has replaced "Way to go, Einstein" as the
ultimate sarcastic comment on incompetence.

Does that help?

Totally, thank you! Like I just said in my response to Bernadette... living
in an area that is very rarely ever hit with extreme weather conditions we
don't have to deal with that sort of thing, so we have no idea how bad it
can be to have to depend on a "helpful" organization to come to our
assistance when the weather brings such devastation to our homes. I think
us hearing that those affected by Katrina had FEMA on the way to "help"
lulled us into a false sense of peace of mind for those people waiting for
help. This has definitely opened my eyes, thank you!

*hugs*
Gem

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:51:55 -0400, Not Likely wrote:

"Bernadette" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:53:25 -0400, Not Likely wrote:

Thank you both, but my question was *why* is it a good thing that
England doesn't have FEMA 'helping' them? Are they bad at what they
are supposed to do? Or is it because New Orleans is still in need of
help so long after their disaster?

The reason I say it's a good thing we don't have FEMA over here is
because of what I read after Hurricane Katrina hit.

My son was one of the lucky ones whose house only had minimal damage
because of the part of Texas he lives in. He and his wife helped set up
a local organisation to help some of the people who ran before the
hurricane hit but who were left homeless.

There are a couple of articles at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091701392.html
and
http://www.colorofchange.org/fema/message.html that explain the
situation better than I could. I find it difficult to trust any
organisation that accepts total incompetence as the norm.

Ahh, okay, thank you! )

Living in an area that rarely has extremely bad weather, and when we do it
often by-passes us (except for major blizzards... we are in the snowbelt
region of our area so we get a ton of the stuff and I'm glad I don't have
to go out in it), we are lucky enough to not have to deal with such
horrible things, nor with the incompetence of "helpful" organizations. So
thank you for your message and the links.

*hugs*
Gem


This has been the wettest year for over 200 years in the UK so I can
understand to some extent the lack of readiness to cope with these freak
conditions. However, as New Orleans and some southern states of the USA
are in "hurricane alley" I really can see no excuse for the lack of help
for the people affected in those areas.

Bernadette wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:51:55 -0400, Not Likely wrote:

"Bernadette" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:53:25 -0400, Not Likely wrote:

Thank you both, but my question was *why* is it a good thing that
England doesn't have FEMA 'helping' them? Are they bad at what they
are supposed to do? Or is it because New Orleans is still in need of
help so long after their disaster?
The reason I say it's a good thing we don't have FEMA over here is
because of what I read after Hurricane Katrina hit.

My son was one of the lucky ones whose house only had minimal damage
because of the part of Texas he lives in. He and his wife helped set up
a local organisation to help some of the people who ran before the
hurricane hit but who were left homeless.

There are a couple of articles at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091701392.html
and
http://www.colorofchange.org/fema/message.html that explain the
situation better than I could. I find it difficult to trust any
organisation that accepts total incompetence as the norm.
Ahh, okay, thank you! )

Living in an area that rarely has extremely bad weather, and when we do it
often by-passes us (except for major blizzards... we are in the snowbelt
region of our area so we get a ton of the stuff and I'm glad I don't have
to go out in it), we are lucky enough to not have to deal with such
horrible things, nor with the incompetence of "helpful" organizations. So
thank you for your message and the links.

*hugs*
Gem


This has been the wettest year for over 200 years in the UK so I can
understand to some extent the lack of readiness to cope with these freak
conditions. However, as New Orleans and some southern states of the USA
are in "hurricane alley" I really can see no excuse for the lack of help
for the people affected in those areas.


Not only was there no excuse, Bernadette, but the Department of Homeland
Security's earlier predictive assessments for major disasters in the
U.S. included not just terrorist bombs but FLOODING IN NEW ORLEANS. The
whole thing is just shameful beyond belief.

"spampot" ""spampot\"@NO SPAM orph.org" wrote in message
...


Not only was there no excuse, Bernadette, but the Department of Homeland
Security's earlier predictive assessments for major disasters in the U.S.
included not just terrorist bombs but FLOODING IN NEW ORLEANS. The whole
thing is just shameful beyond belief.

Will it be better if it happens in the future?

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"spampot" ""spampot\"@NO SPAM orph.org" wrote in message
...
Not only was there no excuse, Bernadette, but the Department of Homeland
Security's earlier predictive assessments for major disasters in the U.S.
included not just terrorist bombs but FLOODING IN NEW ORLEANS. The whole
thing is just shameful beyond belief.

Will it be better if it happens in the future?

Mary



Ummm...not during this administration. Major changes are needed.
Public TV did a special on how FEMA's budget and management were slashed
and toyed with for years.

There's one other factor that's rarely mentioned; New Orleans was not so
threatened as long as the city remained small. It used to be that banks
would not give mortgages to structures built so close to the water --
since they knew what would happen if you built on a barrier island! BUT
some years ago (I don't know exactly when), FEMA started guaranteeing
such mortgages ... with the predictable results. People built there,
insurance companies insured them to get the high premiums, then went out
of their way to deny claims during predictable floods.

Why is not having FEMA a good thing?
1) In New Orleans, FEMA caused as many problems as they fixed.
2) They spent a lot of money.

There was a time when FEMA was one of the best organizations in the world.
They planned, and they executed well. I worked with FEMA guys back in the
early 90's. They were good! No, they were very good.

Bush broke FEMA when he folded it into the Department of Homeland Security.

Let us face the truth. We could spin long yarns about Bush not being able
to "knit."

Aaron


"Not Likely" notinthislifetime@yougottabejoking wrote in message
...
"spampot" ""spampot\"@NO SPAM orph.org" wrote in message
...
Bernadette wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:42:46 -0400, Not Likely wrote:

At least they don't have FEMA "helping" them.
spampot. . .
Pardon my ignorance, but ?????????

*hugs*
Gem

Here you are Gem.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

They are the Federal Emergency Management Agency who were supposed to
organise and co-ordinate the relief work after New Orleans was flooded.
I
too am pleased that we don't have them over here as my sister in law,
and
family, live in Gloucester and have been affected by the flooding.
John Oliver, the brilliant comedian on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, did a
"report from the scene" on the British floods, and finished up with
praise of Gordon Brown..."Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!" We
nearly died laughing (Gem, Bush said that very thing to the incompetent
Michael Brown, whose qualifications for being named head of FEMA were
limited to having been acquainted with Bush in Texas).

Thank you both, but my question was *why* is it a good thing that England
doesn't have FEMA 'helping' them? Are they bad at what they are supposed
to do? Or is it because New Orleans is still in need of help so long
after their disaster?

By the way, I laughed when I read the reference to what John Oliver and
George Bush said to the two Brown men. )

*hugs*
Gem

Aaron Lewis wrote:

Let us face the truth. We could spin long yarns about Bush not being able
to "knit."

Maybe so, but since being vehemently anti-Bush is not a requirement for
participating in this group, I hope nobody does.

Melinda, who is still sort of on the fence and sees good and bad in what
Bush has done but who still prefers him to who the alternative would
have been

--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.

Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
Aaron Lewis wrote:

Let us face the truth. We could spin long yarns about Bush not
being able to "knit."

Maybe so, but since being vehemently anti-Bush is not a requirement for
participating in this group, I hope nobody does.



And since when has that been the case? We're discussing an obvious
failure here, not politics.


Melinda, who is still sort of on the fence and sees good and bad in what
Bush has done but who still prefers him to who the alternative would
have been