Now, because of the prolifieration of spam, I’ve been re-directed to a couple of these sites. I’m here to tell you, they make me sick. Primary reason is I know beyond a doubt these "models" have no clue what they are posing for. Regardless of how they argue their right to free speech and make the argument this is not porn, it’s deception of those that can not understand what is going on merits a LONG prison term, period. This stuff is marketed SOLELY to pedophiles, and pedophilia is illegal. If nothing else, these people are aiding, abetting, and encouraging criminal activity. There’s laws against that I think.
Now, I also know there are very legitimate modeling services out there on the web as well. I’ve seen a few of those too. However, the difference is OBVIOUS. I’m in the same boat as Justice Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. And, I know, everyone else would as well. That’s when it becomes porn.
These guys need their nuts removed by hanging. And, even though the photographer is cooperating at this time, he needs to be castrated first. After that, they just need killin ( legally ) in the worst possible way.
The Volokh Conspiracy looks at a recent judgment in regards to datamining. Specifically, it looked at whether datamining triggers Fourth Amendment protection?
Well, here’s the Fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This was also the hotbed of discussion regarding the recent decision regarding the federal wiretapping issue. To me, it’s fairly clear. The key phrase being “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”. When things are in your possession or home or place of business, they are firmly in your possession. The Founders didn’t fathom the concept of telephones, the internet, cell phones, etc.. Either it was on you, or not. The problem I see here is when you use the internet, you are placing your information in someone else’s hands whether you know it or intend to. All information coming to you or from you goes through other people’s services. At that point, it is in THEIR possession. The interpretations of the Fourth Amendment will vary depending on who’s judging it. If you want to be safe, ALWAYS assume that information can be obtained, which it can be by one way or another. If you want to do something illegal, don’t advertise it on every server that connects you from point A to point B on the internet.
17
Aug
Not only did she rule on the merits of the case she asked to judge, she went above and beyond the call of duty to demand a halt to the wiretap program entirely, immediately, as in, right now.
This just raises all kinds of worms.
-
Taylor was appointed by Jimmy Carter, whose presidency was ended by the terrorist storming the American embassy in Tehran, and, more recently has been harder on President Bush than any terrorist organization. She was promoted twice during the Clinton presidency. Clinton’s legacy was marked by repeated terrorist attacks with no real response. Now, apparently, she feels we need to return to those days.
-
Although wildly liberal, the 6th Circuit is predominantly conservative. Her decision will most likely be immediately overturned.
-
She cites the "right to privacy" in the Constitution as the underlying violation. Here’s the Constitution as The Founders wrote it: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." — Nowhere does it give the rights Judge Taylor cited. And, not only that, it does assure what President Bush was trying to do. Ohhhh kaayyyyyy. Kinda scary to me that Judge Taylor is interpreting the Constitution to be what she wants as opposed to what it is.
-
Dearborn, which is in her district, has the highest concentration of Muslims in the US.
- The ACLU could have filed this case anywhere, why Detroit?
- Democrat Judge Taylor is just more nails in the Democrat we’re-not-soft-on-terrorism coffin.
It goes on and on. I’m sure the happiest people in the country right now are the Republican candidates for national office this fall. And, I’m quite certain this will be an ’08 issue as well.
16
May
Here is the transcript of Bush’s speech last night:
Good evening my fellow Americans, and those of you from other lands who are pursuing U.S. citizenship legally. Tonight Ive come to praise immigration, not to bury it.
This nation was built through the blood and toil of restless refugees yearning to breathe free. Our canvas has been painted in a thousand shades of humanity. Our national language reverberates with the sweet song of innumerable accents. Its a vibrant symphony that brings unity from diversity.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. Thats what sets us apart from the monarchies, dictatorships and democracies-in-name-only. Our Republic was founded to protect the weak from the strong, and to defend the rights of the individual in his person and property.
Americans remember where we came from, and so were a merciful people. America is the land of second chances.
And so, if you sneaked into our great countrylike a thief in the nightto take for yourself the benefits of citizenship without bearing the burdens that come with that high position, I have a message for you tonight.
On behalf of all legal U.S. citizens past, present and future, let me say this: Get off of our land. Get out of our country. Were giving you a second chance to do the right thing.
If you have difficulty locating the exits, just ask any legal U.S. citizen and hell show you the door. If you linger too long, youll get an armed escort.
Once you have returned to your country of origin, you may apply to re-enter the United States legally.
Its inconvenient. Its slow. It will cost you. But as millions of naturalized citizens will tell you, its worth the wait to wake up each morning, to take a deep breath of freedom, and to hold in your heart the meaning of that old song: This is my country. Land of my choice.
God bless you as you start your new life in the bright sunshine of legal freedom.
And God bless the United States of America.
What’s that you say? That’s not the speech Bush gave? Well, you’re right. It’s the speech Scott Ott thinks Bush should have given. And you know what, it is. Scott IS that good. Can you hear me Josh Bolten?
- Technorati Scott Ott, immigration, Josh Bolten
8
May
The CIA has been dogged by colossal failures that have pretty much determined the the entire political landscape of the 21st century to this point. While I was getting funked this weekend, Bush canned another civilian leader of the civilian agency and nominated a current military guy.
Congressman Peter Hoekstra immediately jumped in line with the Democrats in denouncing Bush’s selection citing "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."
My question is, why not? Hoekstra continues with "There’s ongoing tensions between this premiere civilian intelligence agency and DOD as we speak. And I think putting a general in charge regardless of how good Mike is, putting a general in charge is going to send the wrong signal through the agency here in Washington, but also to our agents in the field around the world."
I completely disagree with Hoekstra on this point. It’s sending a STRONG message to the agents in the field that Bush is totally fed up their concerning themselves with turf protection and political games at the expense of doing what they’re supposed to be doing, such as nailing Bin Laden. The CIA have been marked by nothing but failures for five years, and we are supposed to worry about "sending the wrong message" to them in the form of a disciplinarian? I think Hoekstra needs to join them in their time out. Get us a major victory, CIA, and THEN we’ll loosen the reins again. Until then, send in the military and straighten them out.
- Technorati CIA, Peter Hoekstra, Michael Hayden
FEMA’s looking for a new leader. The leading candidate apparently is a fellow named David Paulison. Now, I know practically nothing about David Paulison, but him potentially being named leader of FEMA has some people rather distraught. However, the reason Paulison’s probably going to get the position beyond other people’s objections is because apparently no one else will take it. Pretty amazing to me really. A Cabinet level position no one will take. If anything, I’d take it for as long as I could, and when all the damage was done, I’d at least be a little richer for it. Sort of like Mike Brown did. But, I’d keep my mouth shut on the exit. This inability to attract quality people to a Cabinet level position got me to putting bugs into people’s ears about how this could be. I was pointed to this article written in July 1995. It hit me perfectly and squarely between the eyes. So, I have reproduced the entire Washington Monthly article and posted it here so that people can easily read the entire thing. Don’t skip this and expect my further comments to make any sense.
The FEMA Phoenix reform of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Rarely had the failure of the federal government been so apparent and so acute. On August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew leveled a 50-mile swath across southern Florida, leaving nearly 200,000 residents homeless and 1.3 million without electricity. Food, clean water, shelter, and medical assistance were scarce. Yet, for the first three days, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is responsible for coordinating federal disaster relief, was nowhere to be found. And when FEMA did finally arrive, its incompetence further delayed relief efforts. Food and water distribution centers couldn’t meet the overwhelming need; lines literally stretched for miles. Mobile hospitals arrived late. In everything it did, FEMA appeared to live up to the description once given to it by South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings: "the sorriest bunch of bureaucratic jackasses I’ve ever known."
Fast forward one year to the summer of 1993: Weeks of unrelenting rainfall had driven the level of the Mississippi River and its tributaries far beyond the previous records. Every county in the state of Iowa was declared a federal disaster area, as were portions of eight other states in the river basin. But this time, FEMA’s response earned nothing but praise. The agency met the needs of the flood victims quickly and with few of its trademark bureaucratic tangles. Said Congressman Norman Mineta, then chair of the committee that oversees the agency, "FEMA has delivered finally on its promise to stand with the American people when floods or hurricanes or earthquakes devastate their communities."
How FEMA transformed itself from what many considered to be the worst federal agency (no small distinction) to among the best is the most dramatic success story of the federal government in recent years. Not only does it provide further evidence that the government can work, it offers a blueprint for what it takes: strong leadership, energetic oversight, and, most importantly, a total reevaluation of its mission.
With a budget of less than $1 billion and only 2,800 employees, the relatively small agency has an enormous and vital role. Few areas provide such a clear case for federal involvement as does disaster relief. State and local governments simply do not have the resources to cope with natural catastrophes like the flood of 1993 or Hurricane Andrew.
But after a string of natural catastrophes to which FEMA’s response was, well, catastrophic, people began to wonder whether the feds really did have a role in disaster response. When FEMA bungled its relief efforts after the 1990 Loma Prieta, California earthquake, Congressman Mineta concluded that FEMA "could screw up a two-car parade." In the wake of Hurricane Andrew, the criticisms were even more pointed. The Wall Street Journal ran a front page article that quoted a range of disaster specialists who thought that the agency was more trouble than it was worth; it would be better, they maintained, to dissolve the agency entirely than to try to reform it.
One of the most maddening problems with FEMA, the critics said, was the constant bureaucratic delay. FEMA workers would routinely hold up vital aid requests because the proper forms were not filled out or certain signatures had not been included. "If we had asked for a certain resource this way we could have gotten it," said Kate Hale, director of the Dade County Emergency Services of her experience after Hurricane Andrew, "but FEMA would say that we hadn’t framed the question properly…. FEMA’s employees appeared to be terrified at making a mistake, so they’d rather do nothing than make a mistake because a mistake could cost them their career."
It was a problem that had long dogged FEMA. In 1990, as Hurricane Hugo hurtled towards Puerto Rico with winds of 120 miles per hour, Governor Rafael Hernandez-Colon sent the proper federal aid request forms to FEMA headquarters in Washington. One scrupulous bureaucrat, however, noticed that the governor had failed to check one section of the form. Dutifully, the FEMA worker sent the request back–via the U.S. mail. The returned forms did not reach the governor until after Hugo hit. As Puerto Ricans were cleaning up the mess left by their worst hurricane this century, Governor Hernandez-Colon was forced to re-file the request forms and send them, once again, through the mail. Federal aid was held up for days.
The red tape was aggravated by old-fashioned incompetence. FEMA was, in the words of former advisory board member and defense analyst Lawrence Korb, a "political dumping ground," a backwater reserved for political contributors or friends with no experience in emergency management. President Bush, for example, appointed Wallace Stickney, head of New Hampshire’s Department of Transportation, to lead FEMA. Stickney’s only apparent qualification for the post was that he was a close friend and former next door neighbor of Bush Chief of Staff John Sununu. Throughout his time there, Stickney was nearly invisible, except for regular trips to Capitol Hill to defend the agency against its many critics.
Because FEMA had 10 times the proportion of political appointees of most other government agencies, the poorly chosen Bush appointees had a profound effect on the performance of the agency. Sam Jones, the mayor of Franklin, Louisiana, says he was shocked to find that the damage assessors sent to his town a week after Hurricane Andrew had no disaster experience whatsoever. "They were political appointees, members of county Republican parties hired on an as-needed basis…. They were terribly inexperienced."
FEMA’s most serious problem, though, was even more basic: Its mission was misdirected. First, FEMA was still spending nearly half of its budget on the mission it had been created in 1979 to perform: to prepare for a massive nuclear attack. The more immediate mission of natural disaster response was handicapped by the drain this operation put on the agency’s resources.
But even in responding to natural disasters its mission was muddled. FEMA saw its main responsibility as distributing federal loans and grants to help rebuild an area after a disaster. It would not issue direct aid to a state–or even prepare to deliver aid–until it was given a specific request by the governor. That may seem reasonable–why give help that isn’t asked for?–but, as Hurricane Andrew made clear, this wholly reactive interpretation of the agency’s role was at the root of many of its difficulties.
In Florida, the hurricane so overwhelmed state officials that they didn’t even know what had happened, let alone what help they needed. Initially, Andrew was expected to hit Miami. But when the hurricane hit 20 miles south of the city the morning of August 24, most Floridians breathed a sigh of relief. "The storm surges were not as bad as anticipated," said one spokesperson for Governor Lawton Chiles. One National Guard major issued this report the day after the hurricane: "Florida has not requested any support from other states or federal agencies, nor do we project a need."
Florida was slow to realize its own dire straits because many of its emergency workers were among the storm’s victims. Half of the members of the Dade County Police and Fire Departments had lost their homes. Most of the area’s fire and police stations were destroyed. Like their fellow southern Floridians, disaster management workers were looking for food, water, shelter, and medical care. The state was unable to issue specific requests for aid because it had no one available to assess the damage.
Finally, as the full extent of the damage–and the lack of federal action–prompted heavy criticism, President Bush circumvented FEMA and formed a hurricane task force led by Secretary of Transportation Andrew Card. Card and the task force flew down to Florida to assess the damage. As the Department of Transportation airplane passed over southern Florida, the members of the task force were stunned by the extent of the damage. "This eerie silence came over the plane as we flew over mile after mile of pure devastation," remembers Shelley Longmuir, the task force’s chief of staff. "You got the feeling that you were no longer in the United States, but in some far away, mystical place because there were none of the reference points of civilization…. It looked like Beirut."
FEMA would have seen as much–had it bothered to look. Because of its reactive posture, it had never sent a team of damage assessors to survey the wreckage. Not until Card and the task force flew to Florida did the federal government have a true sense of the storm’s impact.
Upon landing, Card met Chiles in the Miami airport to offer federal aid. Chiles initially declined, saying that Florida could handle the emergency. It is more likely that the governor did not want to have to pay the required 10 percent of the recovery costs. Unlike the FEMA officials who took Chiles at his word, Card insisted that the damage was beyond Florida’s response capabilities, and pressed Chiles to accept massive federal aid to be delivered by a large U.S. Army presence.
After some pushing, Chiles eventually agreed. That day, Bush signed the order to send in Army troops to build shelters and provide food and medical care to the victims of the storm. The next day 3,500 troops were in southern Florida, the first of 17,000 that would eventually serve. Almost immediately, Hale says, the situation changed. "The first thing that happened was the morale improved the minute that people felt they weren’t alone, they weren’t abandoned…. You could just see people find the strength to go one more day when they were at the point of collapse."
As life in southern Florida began its long march back to normalcy, Congress began to consider what should be done with FEMA. It was clear to many on Capitol Hill that it was time to either fix FEMA or do away with it altogether. In the fall of 1992, Senator Barbara Mikulski, then the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA’s budget, told the General Accounting Office (GAO) that it had to suggest real improvements for FEMA or else the GAO itself would see its budget slashed. Officials took the threat from Mikulski, whose subcommittee had jurisdiction over the GAO’s budget as well, very seriously. "This isn’t a member of Congress we were eager to upset," says GAO administrator Stan Czerwinski. "She wanted this fixed and she’s a very key player in Congress for us, and we were there to help her."
With uncommon motivation, the GAO took a tack not often found in government audits. Rather than looking at whether FEMA lived up to its own expectations, as previous studies on the agency had done, the GAO asked what the most effective and efficient role for the federal government would be in a large disaster, and how FEMA could fill that role. This common-sense shift had a profound impact. When agencies and departments pause to self-reflect, they usually ask themselves how to improve their performance in what they are already doing. Rarely do they ask, "What should we be doing in the first place?"
With this question in mind, says Jeffrey Itell, the GAO project manager who conducted the study, the answer was "a no-brainer." FEMA’s enabling legislation, the Stafford Act, provided FEMA officials with powers that the bureaucrats didn’t exercise. "We found that without state requests, FEMA could assess the catastrophic area, assess what assistance the state needed, start mobilizing that relief, present its recommendations to the governor, and, if necessary–as Andrew Card did–get in the governor’s face to force the issue of accepting federal help. Before Hurricane Andrew, FEMA officials took almost none of these steps. Consequently, when a disaster occurred, FEMA’s relief efforts were inevitably too little, too late."
The GAO’s final report recommended that FEMA develop a more proactive sense of its mission. The report caught a bit of luck in November 1992 with the election of Bill Clinton. The model for FEMA fit nicely with the new president’s notion of an activist federal government. To implement this change in mission, the President appointed James Lee Witt as the agency’s director. An unassuming and direct man, Witt was a former construction company owner and county judge who had worked with Clinton in Arkansas as the director of the state Office of Emergency Services. As state director, he had earned high marks for the successful management of three presidential disaster declarations, including two major floods in 1990 and 1991.
Witt’s first challenge was to assemble a staff to direct the new FEMA. Much criticism had been leveled at the high number of political appointees in the agency. More than one member of Congress, including Senator Mikulski, had called for FEMA to be reorganized along the lines of most federal agencies, to be "professionalized." In other words, only the highest positions would be appointed by the president, while all other positions would be staffed by career civil servants. Only then, these critics suggested, could FEMA properly respond to catastrophes.
But Clinton and Witt demonstrated an understanding of the virtues of the patronage system. The high number of political appointees allowed the new administration to free itself of the incompetents and replace them with talented new people. Clinton agreed to let Witt interview all potential appointees to ensure that they were qualified for the jobs. As a result, the resumes of the team they assembled are formidable. Elaine McReynolds, head of the Federal Insurance Administration served as the insurance commissioner of Tennessee for over seven years. Richard Moore, a former state legislator from Massachusetts, was appointed to help make state and local governments better prepared for disasters. Carrye Brown, head of the Fire Administration, had worked on Capitol Hill for 18 years where she was a specialist in disaster and fire legislation.
With a new mandate and the staff to go with it, Witt conducted a top-to-bottom review of FEMA’s mission, its personnel, and its resources. The review brought swift changes. In its first two years, the agency shut down several unneeded field offices. It reduced internal regulations by 12 percent and drafted a plan to reduce them by 50 percent by the end of 1995. It strengthened programs that prepared states for natural disasters. And, so it could better inform state directors what aid was available, FEMA conducted the first comprehensive inventory in the agency’s history.
Recognizing the unlikelihood of a massive nuclear attack, Witt also moved the agency out of the nuclear war business, making available to natural disaster responses many of the resources the agency had accumulated in preparation for a Soviet attack. One hundred FEMA disaster specialists were freed up to deal with natural catastrophes.
Virtually overnight, the agency has developed a new reputation for quickness and efficiency. Gone are the bureaucratic swamps that the old FEMA had made its hallmark. It is telling that when state disaster officials talk about FEMA’s response time, they no longer speak in days or weeks, but in hours. They speak of phone calls, not of forms dropped in the mail.
Consider the Oklahoma City bombing. Tom Feuerborne, director of Oklahoma’s Civil Emergency Management Department, can cite the events of April 19, 1995 almost down to the minute. It was 9:02 a.m. when a truck bomb ripped through the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building in downtown Oklahoma City. At 9:30, Feuerborne placed a phone call to FEMA’s headquarters in Washington. At 2:05, FEMA’s advance team arrived, complete with damage assessors and members of Witt’s staff. Six hours later, at 8:10 that evening, Witt himself arrived to be briefed on the situation. By 2:30 a.m. April 20, the first of FEMA’s search and rescue teams had arrived to supplement the efforts of the Oklahoma City fire department. Says Feuerborne, "My office is very happy with the quick response of FEMA."
Ellen Gordon, administrator of Iowa’s Emergency Management Division, has a similarly uncanny memory when it comes to FEMA’s response to the Midwestern floods of 1993. Shortly after midnight on Sunday, July 11, she received a call from L.D. McMullen, the general manager of the Des Moines Water Works. Their operation was at the point of collapse, he said. The 250,000 citizens of Des Moines would soon lose all of their water.
One year earlier, Gordon would have mailed federal relief request forms to Washington, where, as Puerto Rico’s Governor Hernandez-Colon discovered, they may have received a less-than-speedy response. But all Gordon had to do was place a phone call to the FEMA disaster field office located in Davenport. Early Sunday morning, FEMA officials arrived in Des Moines, and, by 11:30 a.m., they had determined a plan of action. By that evening, 29 water distribution centers had been established. The next morning, the first of 30 self-contained water purification machines arrived. For the next two-and-a-half weeks, the Des Moines Water Works was inoperable, but the city had all the water it needed. "Nothing sticks out in our minds that we had to haggle over or justify," says Gordon. "Whenever we asked for assistance it was there."
It is a sentiment shared by virtually all those involved with the response to the midwestern floods. At a Congressional hearing in October 1993 to appraise FEMA’s performance, congressmen and state disaster officials who testified praised FEMA’s efforts and marveled at the turnaround Witt had engineered. Missouri State Emergency Management Director Jerry Uhlmann said that, "this flood showcased FEMA’s new commitment and successful efforts in disaster response to catastrophic events." And, as disasters are bipartisan, the response to FEMA’s success has been as well. "I haven’t spent a lot of time complimenting the President on his appointments," said Oklahoma Republican Daniel Inhofe, "but I sure did on this one."
The true judge of FEMA’s success lies not in the praise of Congress, though, but in the minds of the victims of natural disasters. Last year, FEMA sent 5,000 surveys to victims to ask them about the agency’s performance. More than 80 percent of the respondents approved of the way the agency was doing its job–a percentage that would have been unthinkable in the dark days following Hurricane Andrew just one year before.
To be sure, Witt deserves ample praise, but do not miss the lesson of FEMA’s rebirth. The change he brought to FEMA is to varying degrees within the capabilities of any government agency or department with strong leadership. "It is absolutely critical that you look … at your role and mission," he says, "and redefine that role and mission to what you feel is important for that agency to be responsible for." In other words, you can’t expect to do a good job unless you know what job you’re trying to do.
Daniel Franklin is an editor of The Washington Monthly.
OK, now where this article leaves off is FEMA is considered the greatest thing since sliced bread immediately following the Oklahoma City bombing the floods of 1993. Kind of a different perspective than people have of FEMA today. What’s different? IMO. Nothing. And, that’s what makes this position so unappealing to so many people. Now, first you have to understand that I don’t consider ANYONE that’s made it politically to the point where they be considered for the top political appointment in the country in what they do. They’re sharp. They may not be the single best qualified, but they are going to be pretty dang smart in order to be in that spotlight. So, these people are sharp enough to know what’s around the NEXT corner. Now, go back to the Phoenix article. Hurricane Andrew drew so much criticism in FEMA’s failure that Clinton was compelled to totally revamp how the government responded to disasters. Being as Clinton took so much heat, Wallace Stickney took the fall as the incompetent who couldn’t direct and Larry Witt became the hero by straightening out Stickney’s mess. The OK City bombing and Floods of ’93 just proved how sharp Witt was and everyone was happy with FEMA. Clinton left office and Bush took over in 2001. Bush of course, brought in his own man who stayed a couple of years and helped FEMA deal with 9/11. FEMA took some heat, but it wasn’t all that bad. Then came Katrina. FEMA took so much heat over that that Michael Brown resigned and they’ve not had a leader since then.
Now, anyone see the connection I got immediately? If not, here goes. In 1992 a hurricane exposed the weaknesses of our federal emergency response system. Names were changed, organizational charts were re-drawn, heroes were proclaimed. Small isolated incidents were used to proclaim the new system worked. In 2005 a hurricane exposed the weaknesses of our federal emergency response system. So far in this case, nothing substantial has been done. From what I can tell, it wouldn’t make any difference. Huh you say? Yup, I’m sticking with that statement. I don’t think it’d make any difference. Here’s why. FEMA does not prevent disasters. I’m not sure people believe that or not, but they don’t. What they do is coordinate existing services to alleviate suffering during a disaster. But, they are totally reliant on local support mechanisms to make it work. In the cases of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, the floods of ’93, and other like incidents, the primary problems were either geographically limited in scope, or limited in the type of destruction. In other words, in the worst looking disasters, the infrastructure remained intact and FEMA had a lot of resources available at the scene of the incident. In the case of the floods, the scope of the disaster was narrow even though the geographic area was large. The nature of a flood is predictable and people have time to prepare and evacuate. As such, getting simple things to them like food and usable water is not a difficult thing to do. FEMA looked great. Where things change drastically is when the scale and variety of disasters change. Andrew wiped out everything. It took out the grocery stores, it took out the utilities, it took out the water purification system. In other words, every single aspect had to be addressed RIGHT NOW. In order for things to get going quickly, FEMA is 100% reliant on the local governments. If they respond appropriately and quickly, FEMA makes them look even better. If they are disorganized and poorly prepared, FEMA just looks awful. In 1992, FEMA looked bad. The Governor of Florida was a fellow named Lawton Chiles. Lawton had a mess on his hands in 1992. He had lost control of the Florida Senate, and to boot, was suffering from clinical depression and was on Prozac. He was at that time, very unpopular and highly ineffective. When Andrew hit, the locals voiced discord and the President ordered emergency supplies himself. The FEMA director is embarrassed and replaced. Fast forward 13 years. The governor of Louisiana is hugely unpopular and ineffective. Katrina hits New Orleans. Known weaknesses in the protection of New Orleans fail. The local leaders fail to initiate evacuations the President suggested. New Orleans floods, the locals voiced discord and the President ordered emergency supplies himself. The FEMA director is embarrassed and replaced. Sounding like a big broken record yet?
FEMA is not designed to prevent large disasters. Nothing can do that. FEMA is not in a position to control local resources. The Constitution prevents that. FEMA has the ugly title of "FEDERAL" stamped in front of it. Federal is a generic term everyone loves to hate. Local leaders know that. FEMA only helps those local leaders looking for someone to put the blame on when these disasters occur. The nature of FEMA is it will ALWAYS be the punching bag in large disasters. The local leaders will be the heroes that got the Feds moving and saved the town. There is nothing I see that will fix that. So, how does that affect what’s going on right now?
| 2006 Hurricane Forecast | |
|
Named Storms (NS) (9.6) |
17 |
|
Named Storm Days (NSD) (49.1) |
85 |
|
Hurricanes (H) (5.9) |
9 |
|
Hurricane Days (HD) (24.5) |
45 |
|
Intense Hurricanes (IH) (2.3) |
5 |
|
Intense Hurricane Days (IHD) (5.0) |
13 |
|
Net Tropical Cyclone Activity (NTC) (100%) |
195 |
Another bad hurricane year. And, we’re supposed to be returning to a normal hurricane cycle at this time. So, it’s going to stay kind of bad for a while. It’s pretty well guaranteed someone’s going to take a fall next summer or fall. And, people are wondering why no one wants to be the next Michael Brown guaranteed? We got more hurricanes on the way, bad levees in New Orleans, and Kathleen Blanco’s still in charge and less popular than ever. If another hurricane hits New Orleans this year, whoever’s in charge of FEMA will be the target of the media and the locals if everything is handled the same as it was last year. So, someone in this position is guaranteed to have a crisis on their hands, be the focus of national media, and guaranteed to have their career and reputation put squarely in the hands of people like Kathleen Blanco and Roy Nagin.
Now, think again why NO ONE will take that job. Would you?
- Technorati FEMA, David Paulison, Kathleen Blanco, Roy Nagin, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Katrina, Oklahoma City Bombing, Floods of ’93, Larry Witt
A lot has been made of the border situation with Mexico. Depending on who you ask, the most important issues are:
- The borders are too porous and allow drugs and other contraband into the US.
- The borders are too tight and cause undo hardship to illegals trying to enter the US.
- There are too many illegals here already.
- There are not enough illegals here to fill the jobs lazy Americans won’t do themselves.
People are criticizing HB 4312 because it encourages isolationism. People are criticizing Bush because he hasn’t built a wall. In other words, the issue is a muddled mess and is apparently being protested on every single angle and issue.
Here’s an argument that I haven’t seen: Build the wall for humanitarian reasons.
- There is a war going on at the Mexican border and innocent US citizens are dying.
- Immigrants are dying trying to get into the US illegally. Building a wall will put a stop to that.
- I truly think a lot of illegals COULD be in the US legally if a proper filter system were in place that didn’t put a burden on those trying to get into the US legally. Regardless of the rhetoric, the US does need a certain amount of people willing to work for less.
Anyone want to jump on my bandwagon?
I put my economic opinions here under politics because federal and
international politics has a very real and direct impact on the economies of the
United States. For instance, the day before yesterday, Bush released his
2007 budget proposal. Critics both on the left and right, conservative
and liberal, Republican and Democrat, have panned it harshly. However, one
group of people seems to be responding to it positively that’s getting little
media recognition:
- Technorati 2007 budget, US Markets
6
Feb
President Bush just released his fiscal year ’07 budget. A lot of social programs don’t fare very well in them. However, he is generous to Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. There will be a ton of debate on this budget as Bush seems to be responding to the criticism he received of being fiscally irresponsible for huge increases in those areas over the last few years. However, I have one basic question I’d like to toss at Webdream readers:
From Section 8 of the Preamble to the United State Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that our government is responsible for the social welfare of its citizens. Only through very liberal translation of some parts of the Constitution does it even allow for collection of taxes to fund those programs. I think I can put my point across in the form of a poll better than any other way. Shall we?
Just read
this by way of
Real Clear Politics:
Border law-enforcement officials and
others were ordered this week to appear
before a U.S. House committee on Tuesday
to give testimony regarding Mexican
military incursions into the United
States.Several members of the Committee on
Homeland Security will be heading to El
Paso, Texas, on Friday as part of a
fact-finding mission.Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas,
chairman of the Homeland Security
subcommittee on Investigations, is
leading the group and will be in
discussions throughout the day with
local law-enforcement officials in the
area."We are going down there to find out
what happened," McCaul said Tuesday.
"The reports I have received are very
disturbing, and we cannot allow and
cannot tolerate armed Mexican drug
dealers to cross our borders and
endanger the lives of our
law-enforcement officers and citizens."Between this fact-finding mission
and the hearing I am conducting next
week, we can begin to understand what
happened and address this dangerous
crime."Hudspeth County, Texas, Sheriff
Arvin West, whose law-enforcement
officers had an armed standoff with men
dressed in Mexican military uniforms
last week, said he is pleased
congressional leaders are finally
calling for an investigation.
Now, at this time, I don’t think an
investigation is worth the trouble. We
already know there’s a problem. We
already know that the efforts to get
illegals across the border is dangerous as
hell. We already know that drug
smugglers are incredibly dangerous. We
already know the ramifications if they
succeed. We already know all this.
The investigation needs to be purely
what can be done to stop it.
Peter King of New York has submitted
legislation to enhance border security.
Now, it’s wordy and all that, and somewhat
boring to read, as all legislation is.
But, it sets a precedent in that it pretty
much desires to seal the borders. Not
with just Mexico, but all borders. It
concerns me in that it bogs itself down with
a lot "assessing". We don’t need a lot
of assessing right now, we need some action.
Here’s ONE suggestion:
These are the co-sponsors:
Now, although some people assure me that
the Republicans rule all right now, nothing
is farther from the truth. Look at
that list carefully. See any big
names? See your representative?
This bill is preparing to die on the vine.
Those names will not get it done. This
IMO is the PERFECT opportunity for Democrats
to grab a topic by the balls and prove once
and for all they are not soft national
security. They’ve taken a beating on
that issue, and justifiably so. This
is their shot to put a dent in that
reputation.
The Republicans aren’t going anywhere
with it. I can tell you that by who’s
signed on and more importantly, who has not.
The
Democrats are opposing it for penny-ante
reasons ( read political gesturing ).
This is just going to be another tool for
the Republicans to beat them with on
national security. They need to jump
all over this but can’t let politics get out
of their way.
But they won’t unless they feel
absolutely compelled to do so. Write
your Representative and tell them to
SUPPORT AND PASS H.. R. 4312 AS IT IS!
If you don’t, then don’t blame it
on Bush when the Mexican military makes
their next drug run into the US. Don’t
you blame it on Bush when people
complain of an "open border". Don’t
you blame your Representative for not
taking action. You didn’t, so
why should they? Bush can only sign
the bills he’s presented. You‘re
as much of the reason a bill gets to him as
the person authoring it. This ain’t a
partisan issue, it’s way too important for
that. If you leave it to the
folks in DC, it will die a partisan death.
And, YOU need to do it NOW, this
bill’s going nowhere unless YOU do
something!
- Technorati
border security, H. R. 4312, activism, partisan politics
